Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rising Seas Give Island Nation a Stark Choice: Relocate or Elevate (nationalgeographic.com)

Posted by msmash on from the moment-of-reckoning dept.

Climate change means the low-lying Marshall Islands must consider drastic measures, including building new artificial islands. National Geographic: The navigational prowess of Marshall Islanders is legendary. For thousands of years, Marshallese have embraced their watery environment, building a culture on more than 1,200 islands scattered across 750,000 square miles of ocean. But powerful tropical cyclones, damaged reefs and fisheries, worsening droughts, and sea-level rise threaten the coral reef atolls of this large ocean state, forcing the Marshallese to navigate a new reality.

In a moment of reckoning, Marshall Islanders face a stark choice: relocate or elevate. One idea being considered is the construction of a new island or raising an existing one. With 600 billion tons of melting ice flowing into oceans that are absorbing heat twice as fast as 18 years ago, the Marshallese will need to move fast. A report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October highlighted different projected outcomes from a temperature rise of 1.5C versus 2C.

In the report, small-island developing states are identified as being at disproportionately higher risk of adverse consequences of global warming. Among them, four atoll nations: Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands, are at greatest risk. [...] In July, speaking at a climate change conference on Majuro, capital of the Marshall Islands, University of Hawaii climate scientist Chip Fletcher discussed possible adaptation measures. When Fletcher presented a map depicting Majuro flooded under three feet of water, there was an audible gasp in the room. For climate activists in the Pacific, "1.5 to stay alive," has been the mantra of survival. "We're going to miss 1.5C," Fletcher told his audience, but added, "there's something we can do about it."

122 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. old story by helllllllloooo · · Score: 2

    I am pretty sure this was decided a long time ago - I read tons of articles about it

    1. Re: old story by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes I understood that they were all going to the US at some point.

      Mostly yes. But for different reasons. The "sea level rise" may be a problem someday, but for now sea levels are rising about 4mm per year, which may be a lot after a century, but is not even noticeable so far.

      Several of their islands are contaminated with radiation from US testing, and they have a high birth rate, so the "clean" islands are getting crowded. Marshallese have a right to immigrate to America, and many of them have done so. Many settled in Arkansas, where they work growing chickens for Tyson. There is also a large group of Marshallese on the Big Island of Hawaii, where they tend to be resented by the locals for working too hard.

    2. Re:old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But my President has told me that Climate Change is a hoax.

    3. Re: old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mostly yes. But for different reasons. The "sea level rise" may be a problem someday, but for now sea levels are rising about 4mm per year, which may be a lot after a century, but is not even noticeable so far.

      It might be a bit more serious than that.
      Rising sea levels means that land that haven't been exposed to the sea that much will get a taste of it.
      While a 4 mm rise only eats away 1-2 inches of you typical beach (about 5-10 degree slope) at first it might mean that more of the sand is pulled away to the sea each year.
      20 years and you might have a full yard of land that previously wasn't used to getting exposed to waves.

    4. Re:old story by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No the sea level is going to rise. Any minute now. Any. Minute. Look look! Here it comes. Oh wait, no. But still, any minute...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re: old story by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but is not even noticeable so far.

      Except where the difference causes erosion of natural barriers and proceeds to utterly devastate areas as a result.

      Science Bomb!

  2. The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's an island in the harbor in Sydney, Australia. Back in 1865, they build a stone fortification on the island. You can see a few photos of Fort Denison through the years on the Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... You can plainly see that the sea level rise since 1865 to the present day is approximately zero.

    1. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Yes, tectonic plates are still moving. And the seas are rising faster than even in geologic history.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can plainly see that the sea level rise since 1865 to the present day is approximately zero.

      Have you heard of "tides" at all?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      If you're certain about this, buy some real estate on the Marshall Islands. I heard prices are a steal these days, plots right at the beach front for a bargain!

      Better buy today! They might be gone tomorrow!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to those who are paid to say that sea levels are rising, sea levels are rising. Except where there is clear evidence that they aren't. Those areas possess so much white privilege that the seas don't rise.

    5. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Foreigners can not buy land in the Marshall Islands.

    6. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Not a chance; latency there is a bitch.

    7. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      As a retired Navy officer with a BS in Physics, I will admit to a certain amount of familiarity with the concepts and mechanisms of tides. I've even sailed on the ebbing tides. But "rising sea levels" aren't caused by tides.

    8. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its possible he meant to say that the variance due to tides is much greater than the current sea level rise and therefor if the picture is taken at the appropriate time it could mask the sea level rise observed in the photo..,

    9. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? I see thousands of years with a LOT higher rate of sea-level change, some as high as 4+ meters per century, which would be about 20 times higher than the worst-case estimates for today. Rising faster than ever in geologic history? Hardly.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      'Settled science' is the kind of thing someone who is non-scientific would say. Science is always un-settled. We learn more every day.

      The 'that is all' you tacked on is further evidence that you've closed your mind to the scientific method. 'All' is never even on the horizon.

    11. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So, the water marks on the photo you mentioned before are not caused by tides? So you can tell us which mark is from 1862 and which from 1950? Good luck with that ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You should have another think about my admittedly facetious question.

      Not that you should need to, since others have already explained my point, and you've apparently avoided addressing it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And the seas are rising faster than even in geologic history.

      Ever think that people like you, the ones that just make shit up like what I quoted here, are the fucking problem? You are a dishonest lying fuck, proven with this quote, and yet nominated yourself as a vocal spokesperson for AGW.

      How about you just STFU forever you disgusting dishonest fuck. Your kind hurts every conversation.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Sique · · Score: 1
      Then lets put it differently: We have a pretty decent clue how electromagnetic waves interact with the molecules in the atmosphere (actually, we can calculate it down to ten digits). We thus know the absorption bands of methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide, and we know, that all three of the molecules are strongly absorbing in the near infrared. We have very good records of the composition of the atmosphere going back at least until 1875. We know that the atmospheric carbon dioxide for instance has risen from 270 ppm in 1900 (e.g. Anatole Leduc: Nouvelles recherches sur le Gaz, 1899) to 410 ppm today (The Keeling curve). We know the relationship between the radiation of a body and its temperature. Max Planck got the Nobel Prize for that in 1919. We know of the Greenhouse effect since 1895, when Svante Arrhenius published it. We can calculate that a black body of the size of Earth on Earth's orbit around the Sun would get into a thermal equilibrium between the energy absorbed from the Sun's radiation and its own thermal radiation because of its heat at around 255 Kelvin (which is close to 0 F). We also know that the average surface temperature of Earth is around 290 K (a little above 60 F). Thus we can estimate the Greenhouse effect on Earth at about 35 K (or 60 F) without breaking a sweat. We know that other bodies in the Solar system have a Greenhouse effect too (e.g. very strong at Venus, quite weak at Mars, and even Saturn's moon Titan has one).

      So yes, there is very much science around the Greenhouse effect, and it needs a totally revolutionary discovery to throw that out. The only wiggle room remaining is that we don't know exactly where and when which secondary effect (e.g. changed weather patterns, rising sealevels, acidification of the oceans) starts to become measurable. For instance, we know now that at least 1/4 of the rising sealevels so far were not from the thermal expansion of the seawater or from known glaciers melting. Instead, it has come from glaciers we didn't know of that they existed (and now many of them have ceased to exist).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      And what about that civilization that lived in what is now the English Channel (or there-abouts; too lazy to look up exactly where in that area, but they made a big deal a few years ago about that area being above sea level)?

    16. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Nope. Whole world used to be covered in ice. It's not anymore. One day it will be again. The climate DOES change!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Umm, they probably ended up slowly moving to the UK, Belgium, or Norway?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    18. Re: The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Only losers paid any attention to the Hollywood films and lore of the 80's and early 90's. There were so many other more interesting things to be doing.

    19. Re:The Seas AREN'T Rising.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Want to buy a passport?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So if things are so hard to measure, then how do we know they are disappearing and not growing or stable like the vast majority of other coral atoll islands?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

      Coral atolls grow higher when sea levels rise. The question is one of rates. As long as the sea level rises are slow enough, the atolls will be more or less fine. But if the water rises faster than the corals can grow, they'll be inundated. Massive corals of the sort that make up these atoll reefs can grow up to 5mm per year. Over the 20th century the average annual sea level increase was 1.7mm. No problem, they can keep up with that. Since the 90s the rate has averaged 3.2mm per year. The corals can handle that, too... but the rate doesn't have to accelerate much more to overwhelm them.

      Indeed, even at current rates, islands are having problems. I was on Rarotonga last month, in the Cook Islands. Natives there told me that their lagoons used to be two to three times deeper than they are now. The problem is that seas are crashing higher over the reefs and depositing more sand, causing the lagoons to fill in. This has created problems for fishing and for the tourist industry (snorkeling in a foot of water isn't much fun). However, it's expected that over the next 20 years the waves will rise higher yet and begin removing sand from the lagoons and the beaches, reversing the shallowing trend and then beginning to eat away at the island. Rarotonga will be fine; it's volcanic and rises over 2000 feet above sea level at its highest point. At worst people will have to move inland a little bit. But it could easily devastate the already-fragile island economy.

      I was also on Mangaia and they're facing a different problem. Much of the island's fresh water supply comes from inland lakes which flow through tunnels in the makatea (fossil coral) to the ocean. But sea levels have risen enough that during storms water now flows in through the tunnels, turning the lakes brackish. This is having serious effects on the island ecosystems as well as making fresh water harder to come by.

      The bottom line is that for many islanders, climate change is already having very real and very visible effects, mostly due to rising sea levels. And it's going to get much worse. And many low-lying coral atolls may just disappear when the rate of sea level rise exceeds the rate at which the corals can grow.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      has no change in land area over the last 60 years [tradingeconomics.com].
      Obviously. Do you actually know how much the sea water was rising during the last 60 years?
      So how the fuck should they have a noticeable as in measurable change in land area?

      Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing.
      Yes, the islands that have 10m in diameter are growing to 11m ... perfect for an area that has 1200 islands and only a few handful of actually inhabitated islands.

      And the thing you forget the most: the problem is not area, it is hight. While corrals grow in some areas, they die in others due to many factors, one is heat. We don't know yet if your cherry picked islands will have corrals that will survive. So while an island might get area, its hight does not change. So no idea about what bullshit you are nitpicking.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      then how do we know they are disappearing From people living there telling us.
      and not growing or stable like the vast majority^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a few hand picked of other coral atoll islands Fixed that misconception of yours ... well, your typo. Not your misconception.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess the links I provided from National Geographic and others, stating that about 80% of all coral atolls are either stable or growing, qualifies as "a few hand picked" to you? You're remarkably light on references...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Theory vs. data by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You have presented zero evidence to the contrary of my claims. Most atolls are either stable or growing. When data and theory collide, data should win - unless you treat your theory as a religion...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sea level rise has NOT accelerated, and the report that found oceans were absorbing more heat than previously thought was found to have fundamental -- it is not unfair to say fatal -- mathematical flaws.

      The truth is that the data does not support that conclusion. At all.

      And while fresh water on many smaller islands has always been an issue, it is not one that can be attributed to AGW-caused "climate change".

    8. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here are two revealing reports about the "ocean heat" paper.

      Author Resplandy has responded and thanked Mr Lewis for catching the mistakes.

      A Major Problem With The Resplandy Paper

      Resplandy et al. Part 2

    9. Re:Theory vs. data by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      A relatively steady 2-3mm or less per year (in most parts of the world) would be max 180mm, or 18cm over 60 years.

      Most people, at most beaches, would not even notice this difference over that great a time period. In fact it is indistinguishable in comparison photographs even on certain Florida beaches which are well-known to be subsiding in addition to any ocean rise.

      Just FYI, I have noticed over a period of years that this "Angel" person has often been an opinionated, agressive, and mean-spirited arguer. My best suggestion is that he/she is probably not worth your time.

    10. Re:Theory vs. data by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      The freshwater problems of these islands is not due to climate. It is almost always a case of local overuse. When the islanders pump to much fresh water out of the island, salt water impinges. Overuse of freshwater can also cause land subsidence.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    11. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 2

      The freshwater problems of these islands is not due to climate. It is almost always a case of local overuse. When the islanders pump to much fresh water out of the island, salt water impinges. Overuse of freshwater can also cause land subsidence.

      Nope, not in this case. The island's population and water use has fallen dramatically over the last 20 years. This is because of climate. Specifically, sea level.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 2

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Theory vs. data by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No this is because it's a shithole and no one wants to live there.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, I have noticed over a period of years that this "Angel" person has often been an opinionated, agressive, and mean-spirited arguer. My best suggestion is that he/she is probably not worth your time.
      Nevertheless you support my point, thank you :P

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You have presented zero evidence to the contrary of my claims.
      You need evidence for common sense? Wow ...

      https://ocean.si.edu/ecosystem...
      https://www.leisurepro.com/blo...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Theory vs. data by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      https://www.leisurepro.com/blo...

      80% of all corral reefs are shrinking or dying ... no idea why you claim otherwise.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Theory vs. data by swillden · · Score: 1

      No this is because it's a shithole and no one wants to live there.

      That's an odd comment. Are you always an asshole, or only on slashdot?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Theory vs. data by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Shove your political correctness up your ass, The Marshalls are the middle of nowhere and the last great thing to happen to them was copra. Guess what? No one is buying coconuts anymore. I'm pretty sure anyone who can get the hell out leaves as fast and as soon as they can.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Re:China will rescue them. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, China isn't "re-developing low lying islands".. The Chinese are devastating and covering up living coral atolls by dredging in order to CREATE islands, in order to claim sovereignty over vast stretches of international water and to fortify those artificial islands to prevent or restrict commerce through the South China Sea. The Chinese don't care about islands; they care about dominance.

  5. Seas are rising - Stop lying by DogDude · · Score: 2

    1. Seas are rising.
    2. That Wikipedia page doesn't show shit. You can't "plainly" see anything.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      1. The IPCC is more political than scientific. You'll need a better argument than an appeal to a political authority.
      2. The PHOTOS on the Wikipedia page clearly show that the waterline of the stonework in 1865 is pretty much even with the waterline in 2014.

    2. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by Sique · · Score: 1

      The IPCC is not political. You just want to be it political. The IPCC does nothing else than compiling all recent papers concening climate research into a big meta study every few years. Sorry if the results of that meta study doesn't fit some political agendas, but that doesn't make the meta study as such political.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Just about anything that starts with the word "international" is political. And if IPCC does compile "recent papers", how does it take the politics of those papers into account? I tend towards agnosticism--climate change is too political on both sides to know what research is true and which is just crying wolf. On Both Sides! One clue: When global warmist believers start having all their meetings virtual, and start calling for measures that don't enrich themselves (power or money), then they become more believable. Until then, true or not, I don't put much credence in their "findings". The other side doesn't have much power.

    4. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc) says - surprise! - Climate Change is real!

      How about say, using an objective source?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Seas are rising - Stop lying by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Just about anything that starts with the word "international" is political.

      That's a really stupid statement. You're hopeless.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  6. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    I don't see why we can't dredge the plastic out of the ocean and use it to build up these islands. It's a win-win.

  7. Don't Atolls naturally Collapse Back into the Sea? by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that atolls naturally collapse back into the sea over a period of several hundreds of years.

    Ocean level changes not with standing, isn't this part of the natural collapse of land back into the ocean?

  8. Your link proves him right by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read your own link, you'll find since 1862 sea level has risen about 0.25 feet. That is hardly anything, and again, if you look at the data you posted it has actually FALLEN very slightly since 1950.

    Also doesn't the rather large jump around 1950 with no other rise since kind of speak to the measurement method having changed?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Your link proves him right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quite the skilled propagandist you are. ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way? And if you read the link you'd see a fair amount of fluctuation. Arbitrarily picking dates and saying "Hey, it's dropped" reminds me of the "There's been no temperature rise for 14 years" meme that was doing the rounds last year.

      Sea levels are rising. Not only is picking one location and saying "Huh, no rise there" meaningless, but in this case the GGP didn't even pick an example that actually showed no rise. But sure, go by photos on Wikipedia, that makes far more sense than believing actual scientists and their so called "measurements".

  9. Domes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    They need to start their undersea lifestyle sooner than later.

  10. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    The irony in calling scientists religious, when it is the one ideology that begs to be proven wrong every day. Unlike actual religion.

  11. Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

    I currently live on Long Island, NY. If the seas rise just a little bit, all this expensive real estate out here will be gone, just gone and all the millions of humans that live here now will have to relocate. Well, life is changing, I suppose. Humans are adaptable to change. If the Artic pole melts away fully, hey!, new real estate! Yay us! /s

    1. Re:Where do we go? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... if the ANTarctic ice melts you could get some new real estate. All the arctic ice melting is going to give you is a nice fishing hole, provided you have some real estate in Greenland.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Touche Sir/Madam. I stand corrected.

    3. Re: Where do we go? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      There's always a McDonalds down the road..., oh wait, no more roads. Hmmm...

    4. Re: Where do we go? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re: Nuke 'em? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I heard North Korea is planning something like that already.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. We already have a solution to this by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Just redefine sea level to be lower, that's all! Worked for Colonel Stuart.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    1. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Nice comment, I like how you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1
      Sorry, wrong link. I meant to post this... :^)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Military career

      Stewart was appointed a Cornet in the British 11th Hussars in 1865. In 1882 Lieutenant Colonel Stewart was instructed to prepare a report on the Sudan where Muhammad Ahmad Al-Mahdi was defying the Egyptian Government with success. After a journey to Khartoum and return to Egypt the "Report on the Soudan" (1883) was finished.

      He returned with Gordon as second-in-command on his journey to Khartoum commencing with departure from Victoria station in February 1884. Wounded during the siege, Stewart led an attempt to break the blockade aboard the Steamer Abbas in September 1884, along with the British consul Frank Power (who was also the correspondent from The Times), the French consul Léon Herbin, and other residents of Khartoum. The attempt failed when the Abbas ran aground on a rock near Abu Hamad. All passengers and crew were killed by Arab tribes ashore. Gordon learned of this a few weeks later when he received a letter from the Mahdi that quoted from letters that Stewart had been carrying with him on the Abbas.

    3. Re:We already have a solution to this by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      John Donald Hamill Stewart, CMG (15 October 1845 – September 1884)[1] was a British soldier. He accompanied General Gordon to Khartoum in 1884 as his assistant. He died in September 1884 attempting to run the blockade from the besieged city at the hands of the Manasir tribesmen and followers of Muhammad

    4. Re:We already have a solution to this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Funnily Swiss naval maps use 1m lower (or was it higher? I forgot) as "agreed zero" for water depths than the rest of Europe. Which is a pain in the ass for Swiss who have to navigate in tidal water. No one knows why they did that. Obviously swiss people mostly use local maps anyway so thy don't have that problem ... so much to "defining water depths/height".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Re:China will rescue them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lacist.

  15. Simple solution by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sell them to climate change deniers. By their logic, it should be a nice deal.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  16. Floating islands by sl149q · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is an old post describing how coral atolls float and effectively keep pace with the rise and fall of sea level.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

    And there have been numerous recent reports showing that island (e.g. Tuvalu) is indeed growing.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

    From Nature communications:
    Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations

    Paul S. Kench, Murray R. Ford & Susan D. Owen

    Abstract
    Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90±0.4mm.yr1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.

    1. Re:Floating islands by thogard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sand based atolls are effectively floating on slightly more sense layers and most of them are in areas where that other layer is flat. The atolls dissolve on one side and get built up on the other by a mix of consistent ocean currents and prevailing winds. That causes the islands to creep along keeping their basic shape until they hit depression or hill on the lower layer. Depressions tends to destroy the atoll and the hills tend to split the atolls in two.

      These sinking islands are going to sink weather global warming is true or false but global warming always gets drug into conversation about them which sidelines the discussion.

    2. Re:Floating islands by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you are the one backwards.

      there is no problem here with the islands, only expected behavior.

      trying to whine about global warming and invoking an imagined problem with these islands is wrong.

  17. Relocate, elevate. What about respirate? by Snufu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Everything is either or with you guys. So what if it's bleedin' damp.

  18. Re:My favorite is Florida by willy_me · · Score: 2, Informative

    Red tide is not brought on by climate change. Pollutants in the water (fertilizer) result in optimal conditions for red tide. One has to better manage farming practices inland to prevent the pollutants from running off into the ocean. Warmer water temperatures could also be a factor - but minor compared to the impact of pollutants.

  19. Re:My favorite is Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Warmer waters are a precondition for dinoflagellae, the nitrates give them a food source that allows them to saturate the water when they die making it anaerobic in addition to the neurotoxic domoic acid they excrete. Both are required.
    Stop pretending you're a marine biologist who knows definitively what you're talking about when you don't. Red tide favorable conditions are indeed obviously part of climate change in some places, and you don't know how much.

    No, we don't need some layman's loose guess about which is worse, it varies from place to place and both are bad news because the result is dead zones and possibly eventually loss of species. Yes, climate change influences that.

    Lie casually again and you lose a finger.

  20. I think you mean skilled reader by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Quite the skilled propagandist you are.

    I read data from the graph at the link that *you* provided... are you saying the link you provided was propaganda?

    Trust me, it didn't take a lot of skill to read data from a chart. But, apparently it's more effort than you put in.

    ".25 of a foot" huh? Who measures seal level rises that way?

    Sorry, didn't think you would understand what "mm" meant. You are just an AC after all. You can go back to your link again and find the same numbers I did any time you like, in mm directly from the chart on measured levels. I guess maybe you did and because the numbers were so large you thought it meany the increase was really large? Maybe you didn't bother to subtract the start from the end? Is that why you posted the link with such obvious pride despite it saying the opposite of what you were claiming?

    I'll note you did not even attempt to answer the questions I posed, so perhaps the concept of "mm" is beyond you after all.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Re:When faggot Kenwd0elq is proven a liar... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    That's the usual response from an idiot when he doesn't have the facts on his side. Care to be civilized for a change?

  22. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    You don't need to dredge the plastic out of the ocean. Catch it at the river flows in the Asian countries who are dumping most of it into the sea.

    It's not mostly coming from the West.

  23. Re: Don't Atolls naturally Collapse Back into the by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Fukushima is on the main island of Japan, not on an atoll.

  24. Re:My favorite is Florida by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Without any 'climate change' at all but continual fertilizer flow, red tide would continue.

    Would my middle finger suffice? No, you can't keep it. Just stare at it and gibber some more.

  25. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    The Americans don't care about islands; they care about dominance.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  26. Re:China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    What does your comment have to do with the discussion?

  27. Re:When faggot Kenwd0elq is proven a liar... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    It is unfortunately common for liberal ACs to resort to threats of violence and homophobic slander in the face of reason and facts.

  28. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    First off, 'progressives' who would be fighting 'Fox News and Breitbart' people would never use the term 'faggot'. You're just a crapflooder, and if you want your gibberish to have any impact at all in these discussions, you need to quit using the homophobic slur 'faggot.'

    But you're just a mindless crapflooder spamming here to stink things up, so it doesn't really matter. I wish that Slashdot would come up with an effective mechanism to remove your comments.

  29. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The Americans are the ones who bomb countries and invade neutral nations and cause death and destruction. Obama holds the world record for most children murdered by drones. He bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Suddenly China are the bad guys now? Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  30. Re: Give us a break by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    But the Sun probably WILL engulf the Earth! In 3-4 BILLION years, and assuming that we don't move the Earth into a more distant orbit. (Larry Niven figured out HOW, even though we're millennia away from having the technology to do it.)

  31. Why the hell by OYAHHH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are seemingly half the articles on /. about "global warming" today?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re: Why the hell by luisdom · · Score: 1

      What I'm wondering is how come a well established position in science is rejected by the majority here. What's next, vaccines?

  32. Re:My favorite is Florida by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    I am not a "climate denier". Since "Globull warming" is more of a RELIGIOUS nature, the proper term is "Climate Heretic".

    I am a Climate Heretic.

  33. Re:We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very s by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    But none of the nations that ARE bound by the treaty, such as France and Germany, are reducing their CO2 emissions at all.
    You are an idiot. All countries are reducing their output significantly.
    Germany reduced its CO2 output greatly, we are still ahead of the USA. And we do this continuously since a long time, so the effect is much bigger than the puny reduction the USA did in the last 5-10 years. As far as I know the grant nation of USA is in terms of "percentual" reduction at rank 2 or rank 3. BEHIND Germany. And the point is: the USA could have started 20 years earlier, like Germany did, which would have had an GIGANTIC impact.

    Not that any of this matters, since the Sun is probably going into a period of slightly reduced output.
    No it isn't. It is at a minimum since roughly 15 years, unexpectedly long.

    And Germany is closing their nuclear power plants, so they also have apparently given up trying to meet their CO2 reduction targets. We produce two times more electric energy with renewables than we ever produced with nuclear power.

    There are a few things to consider: you want riots? Or you want to continue the exit from nuclear? As you don't live in Germany: that is not your choice.

    The Chinese are building MANY new coal-fired plants, so they will never be able to reduce their CO2 emissions. So, they are not able to shut the plants down later? For what reason? Or electrify road traffic and ban gasoline for private/corporate use, to compensate for coal CO2 with less gasoline CO2? For what reason?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Whataboutism, whataboutism, he approved the operation so he's guilty and needs to stand trial for war crimes at The Hague and hang just like Halder and Keitel, attempted justification for American meddling thousands of miles from their territory. Seriously, who causes the most war deaths worldwide? It ain't China. Look in the mirror.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  35. Re:China will rescue them. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    The first comment in the thread concerned China's actions regarding certain small, low-lying islands. If you want to invite comparison with America's actions regarding such, that might be considered a legitimate point of discussion. But, no, you're not doing anything like that, you're trying to derail the conversation and force your completely unrelated agenda down our throats instead and it's not at all welcome. KGFY.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  36. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    It's definitely not the real APK. I have old old beef, and almost kinship too, with APK, which I've tried to bait him to reveal (so I can then wind him up - nobody's perfect). No satisfaction. lol! The reason he can't go back that far in his "memory" is because this guy isn't as good as APK was at managing his AC posts - maybe APK manually kept an offline database of all his AC CID's and SID's.

    The original APK was an intelligent and amusing sparring partner, and he used the hidden mechanisms of /. with skill and very deftly. This one (many of them?) is but a shade of APK, a poor copycat. So say I. And so says my UID and posting history. Thank you for reading this far. Now get off my lawn poor copycat.

    Maybe I'll open an "APK museum" on a hidden SID - or maybe just let him die. What's best? What really happened to APK? Someone's got to care about him, surely! Obnoxious twats (me) giving a damn about other obnoxious twats, who would've thunkit?

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  37. Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    Also, where's my hook-nosed bitch troll gone? I enjoyed the jewess rant I was getting below my post every time I BTFO'd someone with facts!

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  38. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    The Soviet Union defeated Germany, thanks for playing though. Americans started more wars and overthrew democratically elected governments and replaced them with dictators. Iran, Guatemala, the list goes on. How many illegal wars is the USA engaged in right now?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  39. Re: China will rescue them. by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Suddenly China are the bad guys now?

    It's not really about that but since you demand a simple answer... "Sure."

    Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory?

    Lots of reasons but this 'expansionism' has nothing to do with "trying to keep the Americans away" and everything to do with the Chinese government eyeballing their neighbors' undersea resources.

    It's Tibet all over again.

  40. Re:China will rescue them. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So how much living coral was killed by US nuclear testing?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  41. Re:So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    I can design reproducible experiments to demonstrate and measure gravity. It follows the mathematical formulae precisely. Please show me where your experimental evidence is for AGW? Oh wait... you have "computer models". Oh way, those "computer models" haven't even been able to predict anything accurately, so you keep having to change them all the time. Yeah ok. CALL ME WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  42. Re: We're going to blow way past 1.5 degrees very by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yep, this is what you sound like.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  43. Not the UK? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    When it comes to an island mindset, nobody beats them...

  44. Re:China will rescue them. by careysub · · Score: 1

    A really odd tack to take, complaining about "wahtaboutism" when this sub-thread exists entirely because of your own whataboutist post upthread, seeking to haul in unrelated "whatabouts".

    Disingenuous hypocrite much?

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  45. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    This is the second time in a relatively short period you've tried to demonize Obama for decisions he had nothing to do with. The authorization for the military strike came from the local command structure in Afghanistan, not from Obama ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... ) Do you really think the president of the United States is consulted every single time our arm forces shoot at something. That would be ridiculous.

    So my question to you is, do you make this stuff up your self or do you just gullibly believe everything you read on front right wing "news" sites?

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  46. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    The Nuremberg Laws. Halder and Keitel hanged for the same war crimes. You can't claim ignorance.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  47. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    You're ridiculous. If Obama didn't directly authorize the action then he can't be held accountable for it anymore then a parent can't be held accountable for their grown childrens actions. Likewise, if a manager rapes a subordinate is the CEO in the wrong?

    Yes, something very fucked up happened and there are people who should have been punished very severely for it but once again, Obama had nothing to do with this.

    You really do just want to find fault in Obama don't you?

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  48. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Oh ho ho. I see you don't know the Nuremberg laws. Command responsibility, look it up. Obama's hands are drenched in the blood of innocents. He needs to stand trial in The Hague for war crimes. Perhaps he can claim ignorance and be acquitted. But the trial must certainly take place. That defense didn't work for the Nazis, but feel free to go ahead and try it.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  49. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Right. This is what I get when I look up the Nuremberg laws as you have told me to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , https://www.britannica.com/top...

    So laws forbidding Jews and German from marrying and just generally removing rights from Jews have something to do with this how?

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  50. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    You're deliberately being obtuse. The Nuremberg trials after WW2. International tribunals where "I didn't know" was rejected as a defense. Go ahead and try though. I'm sure all those murder victims will understand.

    I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.amnestyusa.org/is-...

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  51. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    I'm deliberately being obtuse? You consistently just make shit up on the fly and I'm being obtuse for calling you on it. How on fucking earth would the Nuremberg trails have resulted in "laws"?

    On top of that you link to a post about drone strikes that literally has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    Your post is an intellectual mess that points to nothing but complete confusion.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  52. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    It's just frustrating how *uneducated* you are and how requiring you to understand something results in you deliberately misunderstanding.

    Fine, yes, I was talking about the Nuremberg principles, not the Nuremberg laws. The two are so easily confused that the Wikipedia page has a disambiguation page attached. Now that I look, the Nuremberg laws page has a disambiguation notice directing you to the Nuremberg principles about war crimes, which you deliberately ignored. You really didn't see it there and click over? An intelligent person would have done so. Here's the part where Obama will be convicted in a war crimes tribunal:

    Principle III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

    Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
    (a) Crimes against peace and humanity:
    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or a plan of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
    (b) War crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    (c) Crimes against humanity:
    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

    So yeah, under any just system of international justice, Obama must be tried for war crimes. Principle III means he can't say "durrr I didn't know" because he was the commander-in-chief. I am astonished you are not familiar with these principles as they form the foundation of international human rights laws. Moreover command responsibilty means he can't dodge prosecution. Since you are incapable of your own research, I have done it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The United States of America confirmed and incorporated the mentioned 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on "command responsibility" into United States federal law through the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court (called the "Yamashita standard") in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted in 1945 for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines, in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Yamashita was charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes."

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  53. Re:Adolf and Saddam are dead. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Pardon, your ideology is showing. You might want to tuck it in.

  54. Re:China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Wow. The 'whatabout the americans' dude surfaces several layers down in the thread to claim.... hmmm....

  55. Re: China will rescue them. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    To be fair, in China and Russia's cases, it wasn't really 'war deaths' in the traditional sense. They killed mostly their own peoples. And they did so long after the 'civil war' that established their Communist parties were over. After consolidating power.

    What a nasty way to use State power. The US seldom acts in anywhere near as nasty a fashion.

  56. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Nice. Not just making shit up for once.

    Sadly you haven't been reading my posts so for at least a third time now, Obama did not authorize the strikes so there is nothing to punish him for. He literally had no role in the bombing of the hospital. The only people who can be held responsible for what happened using the laws that you list are the officers who did in fact authorize the strike, who were local in Afghanistan.

    Once again for you in all caps OBAMA DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE STRIKE AGAINST THAT HOSPITAL IN AFGHANISTAN.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  57. Re:So gravity isn't a thing yet...? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    A reproducible experiment is not "someone disagreeing". If I drop my keys, they fall at 9.8m/s^2. If you drop a brick, it falls at exactly the same rate. Experiment all you want. Call me when you get a different result. You had better be ready to prove how I can get that same "different" result too and have the math to back it up, because then you've discovered something new. Until then, argue away. No scientist is listening.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  58. Re:China will rescue them. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Because they're taking the very rational step of trying to keep the Americans away from their territory? Huh?

    I'm glad you followed that sentence with "Huh?" It's an incredible display of self realisation that you have no frigging idea what you're talking about.

    Even when shitting on America it's important to remind people, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICA.

  59. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    I also feel the need to question you on this.

    "Fine, yes, I was talking about the Nuremberg principles, not the Nuremberg laws."

    So according to you, you were asking for Obama to be prosecuted under the Nuremberg "principles". How exactly does that work?

    See, either they're "laws" and Obama can be prosecuted for violating them, or they're "principles" and he can't. In other words, your explanation is as meaningless as your initial statement.

    Please keep in mind my core point that Obama did not authorize a thing still stands, I'm just exploring how absurd your covering for an already absurd statement was.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  60. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Doesn't matter. He's commander-in-chief and cannot dodge responsibility for what happened on his watch. Yamashita went to the gallows for the exact same crime - failing to stop men under his command from committing war crimes.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  61. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    For a person to have command responsibility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), the legal doctrine sited in Yamashita's execution, the person in question needs to have been able to stop the war crime in question.

    In order to punish Obama in any legal context Obama would have to have some sort of liability for the crime committed. He has none because (5th time now) he had absolutely no involvement with the bombing. The bombing was even contrary to clearly stated US military doctrine. Yamashita on the other hand was present with his army and certainly had the power to stop the abuses perpetrated by his army that happened over a period of several years.

    It's really astounding how much you dislike Obama though. You're so desperate to attach guilt to him in this context that you've completely dismissed the legal concept of liability.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  62. Re:China will rescue them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    The judges at The Hague will decide that, when Obama goes on trial for war crimes. Who knows, they might buy your defense and he'd be acquitted! But he must go on trial nonetheless.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  63. Re:China will rescue them. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    "The judges at The Hague will decide that, when Obama goes on trial for war crimes."

    The thing is, he never will because normal people understand the concept of liability.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.