Bio-fuel (from plants) simply shifts the problem from one place to another. Even disregarding the NOX issue the EU's "green target" for bio-fuel is encouraging Indonesia and Brazil to cut down their forest and replace it with palm oil plantations.
I think trees are important to save for many reasons but there is no need (or sense) in trying to attach carbon credits to something that is very difficult to measure, it simply opens the door to scam artists.
Andromeda strain plot summary - science gone mad.
Jurasic park plot summary - science gone mad.
State of fear plot summary - science gone mad.
Notice a pattern? If you want an insight into what scientific skepticisim is all about read either Carl Sagan or James Randi.
"he's certainly more qualified than Al Gore is"
Neither are "qualified" - an MD is not a science degree, particularly so when MC was at school. So let's take a look at what they do rather than what they say they are doing?
Michael Crichton M.D - Replaced other people's research with his own (admirable) fiction and tried to convince the senate it was science.
Al Gore - Presented the IPCC reports in his own (admirable) documentary format.
Here is a quote from the wikipedia entry for MC:
"Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above, that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".[14] Crichton himself states in the book that though he uses a number of studies to support his stance, the authors of these studies do not necessarily agree with his interpretations."
By going to the senate and proffesing to be an expert on climate and disputing the science without any back-up what-so-ever I belive that MC is practising the same "political meddling" that he accuses others of doing both in real life and his books.
Phycologists call this behaviour "projection", but most people call it hypocricy and hubris. Despite this personality flaw (or maybe because of it) he writes a damn good story.
Looks to me as though the GP report made an incorrect assumption wrt to bromide and the bromide industry analyst (err, I mean group) shot down that specific assumption whilst leaving the rest of the report intact. I think it is only fair to allow GP to respond to their critics rather than accuse them of deliberate misinformation based on the response from the affected industry's lobby group.
At the end of the day "truth" is for politicians and preachers, GP is a lobby group funded by individuals as opposed to industry. It's their job to grab headlines just like it's the job of the "bromide industry group" to hose down bad publicity.
The economy/environment are two faces of the same life support system, the real question here is why is it so hard to determine what impact a particular device may (or may not) have on the environment over it's entire life-cycle.
Exactly how I see it.
The center of a storm is a big blob of cold air getting dragged behind falling ice, similar to blob hitting the bottom of a lava lamp.
The "breathing" is the bow wave it creates as it moves forward across the surface, that's why you have to be in front.
Also explains why it is hard to detect in a fast moving storm - cold air is flooding the area and you are under the waves before you know it.
"While there may be many that reject that these systems can be effective at all, I'd suggest that there's many more that would actual argue that while these systems do work, they aren't necessarily the best or only method that is effective."
Agreed, but I would also suggest that evolutionary answers become starkly more efficent as the complexity of the problem grows. Yet it's just too hard for people to see their soul emerging from a computational system based purely on matter, even Dawkins acts as if life is NOT meaningless regadless of what logic and observation says. In the same way that nobody can remeber being born, non-existence is just too difficult for any human to trully comprehend. The evolution of perception in living creatures has dictated that our minds instinctively belive they are immortal even though our body "knows" otherwise.
In other words we are bound by our experience and can never really understand ourselevs, let alone what 42 means.
I've been a casual cloud/storm nerd for decades and if you watch the sky long enough you can't help but notice "waves" and "drainpipes" at a more localized scale (particularly when a strong cold front is approaching).
I currently live a 100M or so from the beach in Melbourne Australia. Small intense storms come in over the bay heading directly toward the beach so you get the front "ledge" of the storm cloud coming over while behind you is clear and the drama is still out in the bay. If you stay still and face toward one of these storms roughly when the cloud/sky boundry is directly over the beach you will feel the wind do a 180deg flip as if the storm is enhaling warm air and exhaling cold with a slight pause in between. It is more pronounced with slow moving storms and can last for 15 minutes or so with a regular inhale/exhale cycle of about a minute. The first exhale of an intense summer storm can feel like someone opened a fridge door if you have been sitting with your back turned and not seen it approaching.
If rain/hail is heavy enough in the center of the storm you might also see prominent ridges running up the underside of the ledge similar to those in TFA but curved to fit the squashed drainpipe shape of the storm. When the rain/hail gets closer the wind will turn steady and cold (time to go inside).
Disclaimer: Don't try observing it standing on the beach, and escpecially not with an umbrella!
"Okay, so they've apparently voted again based on how much consensus there is in their opinion."
That is what is mean by the term "republic of science".
"Still no reference to any science."
That is because you are looking at the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), the 2007 report is in three parts one unfinished, the other not yet on the web) - the science is in the technical report. But since you went to a bit of trouble writing that post I will do likewise - here is the pdf version of the SPM.
The SPM is intendend to summarize the science so politicians can make informed decisions, ie: The SPM is a peer-reviewed paper that is not cluttered with all that formal refrence notation. To track down the references got end of the glossary (p954) and you will find some references for the glossary itself (ie: they have defined their terms), on the next page is the start of a rather impressive list of contributors (ie: the authors) - the science is here - the contributors are people like Jim Hanssen who's published papers are relatively easy to find, some contributors have banded together here and will often answer specific questions ( such as the math and experiments you are looking for ). Finally on page 967 is the list of reviewers, who's credentials and publications are also "easy" to look up.
I'm sure if you dug around further you would find the workshop notes for the SPM's "working group" but that's where my patience runs out. I'm INAClimatologist but I do I have a "traditional" BSc in computer science with a major in operations research so I can understand (and argue for) the techniques used in building the models. It would be nice if we could just suck in any old subject but the truth is we can't so I (personally) choose to bow to the republic at this point and follow the high level arguments.
I have had an intrest in this since the early 80's when I worked on an old growth sawmill (greenies chained to dozers, ect), wasn't convinced that it "mattered" (even if it were true) until the 2001 IPCC reports, wasn't "alarmed" until the last few years when I realised it's not about wet feet, it's about dustbowls and famine. Not by itself mind you but combined with over fishing, peak oil, ect.
Fixing these problems would be a boom to both the economy and tecnology if nations could agree to some basic rationing of the "commons" based on our "best guess" as to what the biosphere can cope with, for C02 that figure is around 2.5GT/yr and IIRC we are currently 7.5GT over the limit.
It seems to me that black holes with a mass between 10 and 1,000,000 suns are rare but obviously not unheard of. We have also (indirectly) observed at least one star being sucked into the BH at the center of the milky way.
It seems patentently obvious that this particular BH ( and another one I read about that was ~40sols ) somehow gained mass after forming. But scientists being the skeptical critters they are prefer evidence over supposition since that is how theories are strengthened or discarded. Astronmer's want to catch a stelar sized BH in the process of eating lunch and even then they will only go so far as saying BH's eat 'X' because we have observed it, we think they may also eat 'Y' but we have never observed it.
A similar evolution of ideas can be seen when we look at how BH's went from mathematical curiosity to established science. When I was a kid in the 60's BH's were still just a theory in books. By the time the 80's came around most people assumed BH's were real but some scientists still had doubts and unanswered questions. By the 90's, even the most stubborn skeptic had to admit there was no other explaination. Yet it was not until recent measurements of stars orbiting very close to the milky way's center that everyone fully agreed our galaxy really did contain a central BH.
"If a meteroite hit him. If a Gamma ray burst wiped out all of earth. If a T. Rex crawled up out of the river in my backyard and bit me on the ass. If if if."
No human driving the meteorite, no human can initiate (or even predict) a GR burst and unless T-Rex is wearing a saddle and rider, no human control there either. In other words these things are not under anybody's control they are "acts of god", a car crash is rarely an "act of god" they are usually caused by an act of stupidity or negligence.
"I think it was cool."
Yes, and back in the mid 70's I was also "young dumb and full-o-cum" and would have thought the same thing. Over here in mid-70's Australia it was common to brag how fast you could get from Melbourne to Sydney. However when you are old enough to have lost a few friends and aquaitances who claimed to be "fast safe drivers" the whole "outlaw" thing just looks like a stupid waste of life. I don't wish that misery on anyone but if anyone deserves a Darwin Award for pointless dick-swinging it is the moron in TFA and those who emulate him.
"We glamorize the outlaw."
As this entire thread demonstrates, one man's villan is another man's hero.
"people who understood the idea of having a nice heavy pair of cojones"
Under 25 are we? Older, cooler heads realise there is a fine line between the couragous and the reckless. Had this reckless idiot managed to kill someone he would have found himself locked up for manslaughter and his cojones would be bouncing against the cojones of someone called "Ben Dover" for the next 5-10yrs.
"Are you actually claiming that the IPCC reports qualify as peer reviewed studies?"
1. The IPCC takes it's input from PR-papers where the results have also been reproduced by other PR papers. A six moth old paper with no independent reproduction will not cut it.
2. EVERY national science body on the planet MUST agree on the contents of the reports. From the US this includes but is not limited to NAS, NASA and NOAA.
3. The people who decide the content are scientists, period. If not then please name a single political contributor or a single instance of political interference (there have been many attempts but I'm looking for a successful one).
In short the peer-review process for the IPCC reports would have to qualify as the strictest and most comprehensive review ever mounted by the scientific community. Much like the 150yr argument over evolution, the IPCC is a text book case of how the "republic of science" should work.
Your disdain and ignorance of this approach is reminiscent of the opinion pages of the WSJ that are themselves driven by purely political motives when it comes to AGW.
"Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature."
Refer to the sources for the attribution diagram (figure 2) in the 2007 IPCC SPM, they are too numerous to list here.
I find it amusing that some people (particularly in the US) think that AGW is some kind of politcal conspiracy to usher in world government. Just for a second think about who would benifit from corrupting the science then follow the money behind the people promoting this political conspiracy theory and you will find a bunch of anti-science lobbyists who's sole interest is protecting their clients bottom line.
My bad, I misunderstood the term "abstract algebra". After some googling I now know what you are talking about and realise that my (mostly forgotten) major in operations research ain't gonna help!!!
"The IRCC report was written by a room-full of negotiating politicians and politicized scientists."
Obviously you didn't read the credits, also there is more than one report.
"The only experiment that I'm aware of to determine its effect showed no increase whatsoever. I've been looking for evidence to back up the basis of the "consensus view" for a long time, so if I'd missed it, I'd be very happy to be shown where it is"
CO2 was first recognised as a GHG over a century ago when it was found to absorb long wave infra-red radiation. I have offered thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the form of the IPCC reports, there is not a single scientist in the world who would dispute the basic premise.
To support your claim that the IPCC is "politically motivated crap" you claim to have read their reports. In short you are either a politically motivated liar or simply retarded.
"On the other hand, graph theory, mathematical logic, lambda calculus, probability and statistics have been very useful, and I suspect abstract algebra would also be so if I understood it."
If you understand even the basics of those topics you are already using algebra. Algebra is simply the use of non-numeric symbols to represent numbers and expressions.
I have read the reports also, and your statements leave me with a choice. Either you have spotted an obvious mistake that 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists somehow missed over the last 20 yrs...or...your comprehension is not so good.
Since I firmly belive in the scientific method I am bound to accept the second premise until you produce something other than a dead horse.
I don't know about less green that coal but I agree it would be like a kilometer high razor netting. Modern windmills OTOH are not a problem to birds any more than tall buildings are, (hint: big blades move slow).
Exactly, the WTO exists to promote a "level playing field" and negate protectionist trading practices. A protectionist practice is where the government gives local corporations a legal or financial advantage, such as banning overseas companies from competing, slapping tarrifs on imports, or subsidising exports.
As the other posters have pointed out, melting sea ice does not affect the sea level. If it did then the sea would go up and down with the seasonal melt.
When people talk about an "ice cap" in the context of rising sea levels they are talking about the Antartica or Greenland. Greenland's ice cap is experiencing significant melting (not as fast as the sea ice), the jury is still out on Antartica as a whole but the Antartic penninsula has lost ice.
Losing the Artic sea ice will speed up the melt in Greenland for two reasons. First water absorbs heat from sunlight much better than ice and secondly the existing sea ice inhibits glaciers from sliding into the sea. Have a look around the site I linked to, it is very informative.
Slashdot Mirror
Bio-fuel (from plants) simply shifts the problem from one place to another. Even disregarding the NOX issue the EU's "green target" for bio-fuel is encouraging Indonesia and Brazil to cut down their forest and replace it with palm oil plantations.
I think trees are important to save for many reasons but there is no need (or sense) in trying to attach carbon credits to something that is very difficult to measure, it simply opens the door to scam artists.
Andromeda strain plot summary - science gone mad.
Jurasic park plot summary - science gone mad.
State of fear plot summary - science gone mad.
Notice a pattern? If you want an insight into what scientific skepticisim is all about read either Carl Sagan or James Randi.
"he's certainly more qualified than Al Gore is"
Neither are "qualified" - an MD is not a science degree, particularly so when MC was at school. So let's take a look at what they do rather than what they say they are doing?
Michael Crichton M.D - Replaced other people's research with his own (admirable) fiction and tried to convince the senate it was science.
Al Gore - Presented the IPCC reports in his own (admirable) documentary format.
Here is a quote from the wikipedia entry for MC: "Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above, that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".[14] Crichton himself states in the book that though he uses a number of studies to support his stance, the authors of these studies do not necessarily agree with his interpretations."
By going to the senate and proffesing to be an expert on climate and disputing the science without any back-up what-so-ever I belive that MC is practising the same "political meddling" that he accuses others of doing both in real life and his books.
Phycologists call this behaviour "projection", but most people call it hypocricy and hubris. Despite this personality flaw (or maybe because of it) he writes a damn good story.
Yes, ideas are easier to change than any philosophical dogma.
Looks to me as though the GP report made an incorrect assumption wrt to bromide and the bromide industry analyst (err, I mean group) shot down that specific assumption whilst leaving the rest of the report intact. I think it is only fair to allow GP to respond to their critics rather than accuse them of deliberate misinformation based on the response from the affected industry's lobby group.
At the end of the day "truth" is for politicians and preachers, GP is a lobby group funded by individuals as opposed to industry. It's their job to grab headlines just like it's the job of the "bromide industry group" to hose down bad publicity.
The economy/environment are two faces of the same life support system, the real question here is why is it so hard to determine what impact a particular device may (or may not) have on the environment over it's entire life-cycle.
"See the novel State of Fear...it's not too far off it seems..."
An anti-science fiction writer advising the US senate on climate science, what could possibly go wrong?
"so there is nothing to fear"
"Oh Ned I was so affraid! I nearly went to eternal paradise" - Ned Flanders wife after a brush with death.
In other words: your philosophy makes you feel comfortable. If it didn't you would be in a constant state of anxiety that would quickly wear you out.
"the big old heavy steel ones"
:)
;-)
I grew up in the 60's - is there another kind?
Nice post, what's it doing here?
Thanks - science is driven by our feelings of awe at the power and complexity of nature, as is religion.
Exactly how I see it.
The center of a storm is a big blob of cold air getting dragged behind falling ice, similar to blob hitting the bottom of a lava lamp.
The "breathing" is the bow wave it creates as it moves forward across the surface, that's why you have to be in front.
Also explains why it is hard to detect in a fast moving storm - cold air is flooding the area and you are under the waves before you know it.
"While there may be many that reject that these systems can be effective at all, I'd suggest that there's many more that would actual argue that while these systems do work, they aren't necessarily the best or only method that is effective."
Agreed, but I would also suggest that evolutionary answers become starkly more efficent as the complexity of the problem grows. Yet it's just too hard for people to see their soul emerging from a computational system based purely on matter, even Dawkins acts as if life is NOT meaningless regadless of what logic and observation says. In the same way that nobody can remeber being born, non-existence is just too difficult for any human to trully comprehend. The evolution of perception in living creatures has dictated that our minds instinctively belive they are immortal even though our body "knows" otherwise.
In other words we are bound by our experience and can never really understand ourselevs, let alone what 42 means.
I've been a casual cloud/storm nerd for decades and if you watch the sky long enough you can't help but notice "waves" and "drainpipes" at a more localized scale (particularly when a strong cold front is approaching).
I currently live a 100M or so from the beach in Melbourne Australia. Small intense storms come in over the bay heading directly toward the beach so you get the front "ledge" of the storm cloud coming over while behind you is clear and the drama is still out in the bay. If you stay still and face toward one of these storms roughly when the cloud/sky boundry is directly over the beach you will feel the wind do a 180deg flip as if the storm is enhaling warm air and exhaling cold with a slight pause in between. It is more pronounced with slow moving storms and can last for 15 minutes or so with a regular inhale/exhale cycle of about a minute. The first exhale of an intense summer storm can feel like someone opened a fridge door if you have been sitting with your back turned and not seen it approaching.
If rain/hail is heavy enough in the center of the storm you might also see prominent ridges running up the underside of the ledge similar to those in TFA but curved to fit the squashed drainpipe shape of the storm. When the rain/hail gets closer the wind will turn steady and cold (time to go inside).
Disclaimer: Don't try observing it standing on the beach, and escpecially not with an umbrella!
"Okay, so they've apparently voted again based on how much consensus there is in their opinion."
That is what is mean by the term "republic of science".
"Still no reference to any science."
That is because you are looking at the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), the 2007 report is in three parts one unfinished, the other not yet on the web) - the science is in the technical report. But since you went to a bit of trouble writing that post I will do likewise - here is the pdf version of the SPM.
The SPM is intendend to summarize the science so politicians can make informed decisions, ie: The SPM is a peer-reviewed paper that is not cluttered with all that formal refrence notation. To track down the references got end of the glossary (p954) and you will find some references for the glossary itself (ie: they have defined their terms), on the next page is the start of a rather impressive list of contributors (ie: the authors) - the science is here - the contributors are people like Jim Hanssen who's published papers are relatively easy to find, some contributors have banded together here and will often answer specific questions ( such as the math and experiments you are looking for ). Finally on page 967 is the list of reviewers, who's credentials and publications are also "easy" to look up.
I'm sure if you dug around further you would find the workshop notes for the SPM's "working group" but that's where my patience runs out. I'm INAClimatologist but I do I have a "traditional" BSc in computer science with a major in operations research so I can understand (and argue for) the techniques used in building the models. It would be nice if we could just suck in any old subject but the truth is we can't so I (personally) choose to bow to the republic at this point and follow the high level arguments.
I have had an intrest in this since the early 80's when I worked on an old growth sawmill (greenies chained to dozers, ect), wasn't convinced that it "mattered" (even if it were true) until the 2001 IPCC reports, wasn't "alarmed" until the last few years when I realised it's not about wet feet, it's about dustbowls and famine. Not by itself mind you but combined with over fishing, peak oil, ect.
Fixing these problems would be a boom to both the economy and tecnology if nations could agree to some basic rationing of the "commons" based on our "best guess" as to what the biosphere can cope with, for C02 that figure is around 2.5GT/yr and IIRC we are currently 7.5GT over the limit.
It seems to me that black holes with a mass between 10 and 1,000,000 suns are rare but obviously not unheard of. We have also (indirectly) observed at least one star being sucked into the BH at the center of the milky way.
It seems patentently obvious that this particular BH ( and another one I read about that was ~40sols ) somehow gained mass after forming. But scientists being the skeptical critters they are prefer evidence over supposition since that is how theories are strengthened or discarded. Astronmer's want to catch a stelar sized BH in the process of eating lunch and even then they will only go so far as saying BH's eat 'X' because we have observed it, we think they may also eat 'Y' but we have never observed it.
A similar evolution of ideas can be seen when we look at how BH's went from mathematical curiosity to established science. When I was a kid in the 60's BH's were still just a theory in books. By the time the 80's came around most people assumed BH's were real but some scientists still had doubts and unanswered questions. By the 90's, even the most stubborn skeptic had to admit there was no other explaination. Yet it was not until recent measurements of stars orbiting very close to the milky way's center that everyone fully agreed our galaxy really did contain a central BH.
"If a meteroite hit him. If a Gamma ray burst wiped out all of earth. If a T. Rex crawled up out of the river in my backyard and bit me on the ass. If if if."
No human driving the meteorite, no human can initiate (or even predict) a GR burst and unless T-Rex is wearing a saddle and rider, no human control there either. In other words these things are not under anybody's control they are "acts of god", a car crash is rarely an "act of god" they are usually caused by an act of stupidity or negligence.
"I think it was cool."
Yes, and back in the mid 70's I was also "young dumb and full-o-cum" and would have thought the same thing. Over here in mid-70's Australia it was common to brag how fast you could get from Melbourne to Sydney. However when you are old enough to have lost a few friends and aquaitances who claimed to be "fast safe drivers" the whole "outlaw" thing just looks like a stupid waste of life. I don't wish that misery on anyone but if anyone deserves a Darwin Award for pointless dick-swinging it is the moron in TFA and those who emulate him.
"We glamorize the outlaw."
As this entire thread demonstrates, one man's villan is another man's hero.
"people who understood the idea of having a nice heavy pair of cojones"
Under 25 are we? Older, cooler heads realise there is a fine line between the couragous and the reckless. Had this reckless idiot managed to kill someone he would have found himself locked up for manslaughter and his cojones would be bouncing against the cojones of someone called "Ben Dover" for the next 5-10yrs.
"Are you actually claiming that the IPCC reports qualify as peer reviewed studies?"
1. The IPCC takes it's input from PR-papers where the results have also been reproduced by other PR papers. A six moth old paper with no independent reproduction will not cut it.
2. EVERY national science body on the planet MUST agree on the contents of the reports. From the US this includes but is not limited to NAS, NASA and NOAA.
3. The people who decide the content are scientists, period. If not then please name a single political contributor or a single instance of political interference (there have been many attempts but I'm looking for a successful one).
In short the peer-review process for the IPCC reports would have to qualify as the strictest and most comprehensive review ever mounted by the scientific community. Much like the 150yr argument over evolution, the IPCC is a text book case of how the "republic of science" should work.
Your disdain and ignorance of this approach is reminiscent of the opinion pages of the WSJ that are themselves driven by purely political motives when it comes to AGW.
"Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature."
Refer to the sources for the attribution diagram (figure 2) in the 2007 IPCC SPM, they are too numerous to list here.
I find it amusing that some people (particularly in the US) think that AGW is some kind of politcal conspiracy to usher in world government. Just for a second think about who would benifit from corrupting the science then follow the money behind the people promoting this political conspiracy theory and you will find a bunch of anti-science lobbyists who's sole interest is protecting their clients bottom line.
My bad, I misunderstood the term "abstract algebra". After some googling I now know what you are talking about and realise that my (mostly forgotten) major in operations research ain't gonna help!!!
"The IRCC report was written by a room-full of negotiating politicians and politicized scientists."
Obviously you didn't read the credits, also there is more than one report.
"The only experiment that I'm aware of to determine its effect showed no increase whatsoever. I've been looking for evidence to back up the basis of the "consensus view" for a long time, so if I'd missed it, I'd be very happy to be shown where it is"
CO2 was first recognised as a GHG over a century ago when it was found to absorb long wave infra-red radiation. I have offered thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the form of the IPCC reports, there is not a single scientist in the world who would dispute the basic premise.
To support your claim that the IPCC is "politically motivated crap" you claim to have read their reports. In short you are either a politically motivated liar or simply retarded.
"On the other hand, graph theory, mathematical logic, lambda calculus, probability and statistics have been very useful, and I suspect abstract algebra would also be so if I understood it."
If you understand even the basics of those topics you are already using algebra. Algebra is simply the use of non-numeric symbols to represent numbers and expressions.
I have read the reports also, and your statements leave me with a choice. Either you have spotted an obvious mistake that 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists somehow missed over the last 20 yrs...or...your comprehension is not so good.
Since I firmly belive in the scientific method I am bound to accept the second premise until you produce something other than a dead horse.
Yeah but with LSD your teeth don't just feel loose, they jump out of your head and run around the room laughing at you.
I don't know about less green that coal but I agree it would be like a kilometer high razor netting. Modern windmills OTOH are not a problem to birds any more than tall buildings are, (hint: big blades move slow).
"who could possibly want to stay in nigeria indefinitely?"
Shell, BP, Texaco,...
Exactly, the WTO exists to promote a "level playing field" and negate protectionist trading practices. A protectionist practice is where the government gives local corporations a legal or financial advantage, such as banning overseas companies from competing, slapping tarrifs on imports, or subsidising exports.
As the other posters have pointed out, melting sea ice does not affect the sea level. If it did then the sea would go up and down with the seasonal melt.
When people talk about an "ice cap" in the context of rising sea levels they are talking about the Antartica or Greenland. Greenland's ice cap is experiencing significant melting (not as fast as the sea ice), the jury is still out on Antartica as a whole but the Antartic penninsula has lost ice.
Losing the Artic sea ice will speed up the melt in Greenland for two reasons. First water absorbs heat from sunlight much better than ice and secondly the existing sea ice inhibits glaciers from sliding into the sea. Have a look around the site I linked to, it is very informative.
Sorry but you should actually read the reports before spreading nonesense.