Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News Politics

Maldives Government Holds Undersea Cabinet Meeting 271

Posted by kdawson
from the or-we-could-evolve-gills dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The president of the Maldives and 11 ministers, decked out in scuba gear, held a cabinet meeting 4m underwater to highlight the threat of global warming to the low-lying Indian Ocean nation. While officials said the event itself was light-hearted, the idea is to focus on the plight of the Maldives, where rising sea levels threaten to make the nation uninhabitable by the end of the century. President Mohamed Nasheed and his cabinet spent half an hour on the sea bed, communicating with white boards and hand signals and signed a document calling for global cuts in carbon emissions. The Maldives has already begun to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue to buy a new homeland as an insurance policy against climate change that threatens to turn the 300,000 islanders into environmental refugees. Emerging out of the water, a dripping President Nasheed removed his mask to answer questions from reporters and photographers crowded around on the shore. 'We are trying to send a message to the world about what is happening and what would happen to the Maldives if climate change isn't checked,' he said, bobbing around in the water with his team of ministers. 'If the Maldives is not saved, today we do not feel there is much chance for the rest of the world.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maldives Government Holds Undersea Cabinet Meeting

Comments Filter:
  • by SigILL (6475) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @04:48AM (#29782753) Homepage

    Apparently they were under a lot of pressure.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by adamchou (993073)
      Well at least the US won't be the only country with mortgages under water
    • Don't worry (Score:4, Funny)

      by turing_m (1030530) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @06:00AM (#29782987)

      Darling it's better, down where it's wetter, take it from me.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @04:54AM (#29782769) Homepage Journal
    No one's listening, OK. Perhaps you might considering enriching uranium instead. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. You words might have more urgency if they were backed by NUCLEAR FORCE. That's all I'm saying...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'm listening, many of the readers on /. are listening, many people around the world are listening. It was clever stunt that got a lot of international attention and it's a good step in the right direction. We can only hope that's it's not a loosing battle. For my part, I support any legislation aimed at CO2 reduction; hopefully after hearing about the Maldives more people will do the same.

      People need to be less cynical, even at the expense of a "funny" mod.

      • by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @02:02PM (#29785471) Homepage Journal
        Sorry I meant people who could actually do something about the problem. I'm not convinced that anyone they've talked to thus far can, anyway. To be perfectly serious for a moment, it would be a bad idea for Maldives to rely on anyone else to solve this problem or to prevent the potential catastrophe they're facing. The whole "We're going to buy as a new homeland" thing is a good start, but they're talking about moving a nation of people and it's possibly only a couple of decades before things start going downhill.

        Have they even scoped out a new homeland yet? If not, may I suggest Utah? No one's using it at the moment, if my last drive through there is any indication...

  • cash cow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @04:54AM (#29782771)
    yeah right they are going to buy a new homeland. that money shall land in the pockets of politicians and the islanders will shake their fists at westerners and make bombs, because brave president whatever his name was, tried to show us.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @04:57AM (#29782781)

    Davey Jones' Locker?

  • by Morgaine (4316) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @05:00AM (#29782789)

    No amount of CO2 cutbacks is going to stop climate change and the sea levels rising, even if CO2 emissions dropped to zero tomorrow. The relevant time constants are from hundreds to thousands of years.

    This pretty much highlights how it's all primarily a media circus and political game. The science is lost entirely in the noise.

    • by omfgnosis (963606) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @05:11AM (#29782811)

      Are you suggesting that it's an entirely non-man-made catastrophe, which was in the works long before industrialism? If so, got any citations to back that up? If not, will you clarify?

      • by DiamondGeezer (872237) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @05:41AM (#29782919) Homepage
        No, I think he's suggesting that there is no catastrophe. The Maldives are 1 metre above sea-level because they are coral atolls. When the sea-levels rise (as they have done in the past, the coral simply grows upwards - when the sea-level falls, the coral erodes, leaving them constantly about a metre above sea-level.

        Its the same with coral atolls everywhere.
        • by ls671 (1122017) *

          All atolls are islands of coral !!! ;-))

          So "coral atolls" is kind of redundant. Yet, a search for "coral atoll" on Google reveals several links using the term. Go figure ! ;-)

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 (carbonic acid).
          As the CO2 is absorbed into the sea, the acid content goes up = dead coral!

          • by nadaou (535365) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:40AM (#29783255) Homepage

            also temperature shocks (like 1998 el nino) make the coral symbiosis into a parasitic situation and now-harmful zoanthids are expelled from the structure leading to "bleached coral sydrome". This dead coral has nothing to repair the small cracks & so breaks up after the next year or two of storms.

            Basically the coral can't adapt fast enough and it may be 1000 years before it's back on track. By which time it has sunk far enough below the exponential decay of underwater sunlight not to regenerate back up to the surface with any great pace. Wave energy probably doesn't get below 100m depth, while the smallest amount of sunlight may make it down that far, so there is some hope for eventual regeneration.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Temporal (96070)

          No, I think he's suggesting that there is no catastrophe. The Maldives are 1 metre above sea-level because they are coral atolls. When the sea-levels rise (as they have done in the past, the coral simply grows upwards - when the sea-level falls, the coral erodes, leaving them constantly about a metre above sea-level.

          Well shit, maybe you should tell the leaders of the Maldives about that! I mean, they've spent, like, millions of dollars trying to find a solution. I guess if they only thought to ask you the

        • The catastrophe is not for nature, it's for man.

          P.S. Corals worldwide are dying. The two culprits fingered so far are rising oceanic acidity (caused by excessive atmospheric CO2 being gas-exchang'd right into the ocean) and human herpes simplex viruses, which apparently kill off some of the important organisms responsible for helping to build and maintain coral.

          • by martinX (672498) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:04AM (#29783135)
            And no-one has considered that fishing with explosives or cyanide on coral reefs could be causing a problem? Interesting.
            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              And no-one has considered that fishing with explosives or cyanide on coral reefs could be causing a problem? Interesting.

              No, I said the top culprits are. I didn't say the only culprits are. Counter-intuitive? Perhaps, but that's true all over. The oceanic acidification from CO2 ought to be obvious to anyone with a degree in chemistry, though; that doesn't include me but it's enough people to make the point. Additionally, we've known about global warming since the fifties, and many proposals were made to limit greenhouse gases way back then. Of course, we know how that turned out; they're a problem for us today.

        • by newhoggy (672061) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:45AM (#29783273)

          Corals grow within very narrow limits of temperature, irradiance, salinity, pH and turbidity; all variables which are influenced by climate and weather. More CO2 means more acidic ocean water, which would retard coral growth. Warmer oceans would also reduce carbonate ion saturation, having the same effect.

        • by smoker2 (750216) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @10:32AM (#29784117) Homepage Journal
          While coral does grow like that, upwards in times of higher sea level, they are unable to do so unless the atoll is covered with water. Coral grows on top of an existing coral base, not from the base. There are islands in the West Indies that have coral terraces gaining heights of 60 or 70 meters above sea level. They are not being pushed up, the sea level has dropped by that much since the first (top level) terrace was formed. Kind of puts things in perspective, i.e. how low sea level actually is today.
      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        That's not even close to what he's suggesting.

        He's saying that the way things are now, there's no way the momentum will change for tens or hundreds of years. He said absolutely nothing about whether it is man-made or not, you pulled that part out of your ass.

    • Of course its a political game. People of the Maldives are going to ask for land and money.

      And I don't blame them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by V!NCENT (1105021)
      I totally agree. I loved it when I watched a Dutch talkshow about a year ago where some 'experts' were talking about global warming and one guy said: "Look guys, I have two graphs here. In the first graph you can see the global warming measured per year. In the second paragraph you can see the carbondioxide emissions meassured per year. Now let's fold these two together, shall we?" And they totally did not match. Man that guy made my fucking day!
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by s-whs (959229)

        > I have two graphs here.
        > In the first graph you can see the global warming measured per year.
        > In the second paragraph you can see the carbondioxide emissions meassured per year.

        > Now let's fold these two together, shall we?" And they totally did not match.
        > Man that guy made my fucking day!

        I'm sure he did. He's probably a member of a liar-club called "Groene rekenkamer" or associated with it. Or something. Those are all people who have no clue what reasoning is (even if some have a univers

      • by Temporal (96070) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:11AM (#29783151) Journal

        Under what mathematical law does the fact that two graphs don't look the same mean that they are not related? This is really sad: Experts spend years analyzing the data, come to an extremely complicated conclusion based on mountains of evidence, and then someone who has not the slightest fucking clue about science or mathematics walks in and says "But those graphs look different!" and decides those experts are all wrong. And worse, other people who share this guy's lack of clue believe his argument because it's the only one simple enough for them to understand.

        Roughly speaking, more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise faster, and yearly CO2 emissions are adding to what is already there. So the CO2 emissions graph is something like the second derivative of the temperature graph. That means that if we keep emitting CO2 at a constant rate (flat graph) then temperatures will rise faster and faster over time (quadratic curve). Yeah, the graphs don't look the same, but they are related. (And in reality it's much more complicated than this.)

        • by Bongo (13261)

          Under what mathematical law does the fact that two graphs don't look the same mean that they are not related? This is really sad: Experts spend years analyzing the data, come to an extremely complicated conclusion based on mountains of evidence, and then someone who has not the slightest fucking clue about science or mathematics walks in and says "But those graphs look different!" and decides those experts are all wrong. And worse, other people who share this guy's lack of clue believe his argument because it's the only one simple enough for them to understand.

          Roughly speaking, more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise faster, and yearly CO2 emissions are adding to what is already there. So the CO2 emissions graph is something like the second derivative of the temperature graph. That means that if we keep emitting CO2 at a constant rate (flat graph) then temperatures will rise faster and faster over time (quadratic curve). Yeah, the graphs don't look the same, but they are related. (And in reality it's much more complicated than this.)

          Any fool knows it is more complicated than that. Look into the matter of whether more CO2 always means higher temp. Look into the matter of how many more degrees of warming can be attributed to CO2 alone. Look into how they know how much feedback there will be from water vapour. Look into how they know how to correct for biases. Look into all of it, please, do look. But please don't just sit there and say there's "mountains of evidence"--that is just hearsay. Actually go and look and whenever you read somet

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cbope (130292)

          What's more sad, is the state of mathematics and science education in the US today. It's no wonder Joe Sixpack comes to this kind of conclusion.

        • by Burnhard (1031106)

          Under what mathematical law does the fact that two graphs don't look the same mean that they are not related? This is really sad: Experts spend years analyzing the data, come to an extremely complicated conclusion based on mountains of evidence, and then someone who has not the slightest fucking clue about science or mathematics walks in and says "But those graphs look different!" and decides those experts are all wrong. And worse, other people who share this guy's lack of clue believe his argument because

        • by DarkOx (621550)

          Roughly speaking, more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise faster, and yearly CO2 emissions are adding to what is already there. So the CO2 emissions graph is something like the second derivative of the temperature graph.

          Well the first derivative would be the rate of acceleration so, based on your sentence that is the one I would expect to correspond with CO2 levels, not the second which would be the rate temperature change is accelerat(ing), those are very different.

          Also I have never seen such a graph and still can't after some googleing. I suspect you can't produce one with, unless you use data from one of the MANY discredited reports where data points that were never measured were added as padding or where the recording

    • by Anonymous Coward

      i guess its gods punishment for being them being gay? or european? or something.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KeensMustard (655606)
      It is certainly true that climate change due to anthropogenic causes is now inevitable - it's already happening, and, as you say, even if we went straight to zero (net) emissions, the imbalance we have created will take a long time to rebalance. The temperature has already risen by 0.75 degrees - 2 degrees is in the zone which scientists call 'dangerous' climate change - we are nearly half way there already. However, drastic cutbacks in our emissions are inevitable. Option 1 is to make those cutbacks now.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jabithew (1340853)

        This is the argument of the Stern review [wikipedia.org] conducted by the UK government.

        The problem is that the cost of reducing CO2 is largely unknown, as is the damage caused to the global economy. So this trade off between now and later is largely based on which made-up numbers you put into the balance.

        One thing is pretty clear; if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to put a price on CO2, and it needs to rise fast. And it will be painful. Will it be more painful than the consequences of global warming? Who know

    • by nadaou (535365) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:25AM (#29783193) Homepage

      yeah, it's better if we do nothing but get really drunk and mock the folks who are trying to do something to save your sorry ass.

      It's the can-do attitude which made America what it is today!

      We may not be able to alter the momentum for 50 years from now at this point, but we can do a lot to affect it 500 years from now, probably no less than saving civilization in the process. One thing is for sure, if you never try you'll never achieve anything.

      • by khallow (566160)

        yeah, it's better if we do nothing but get really drunk and mock the folks who are trying to do something to save your sorry ass.

        Who's really "trying"? I see a bunch of shifty folks trying to reshape society in the guise of doing something about "climate change"?

        We may not be able to alter the momentum for 50 years from now at this point, but we can do a lot to affect it 500 years from now, probably no less than saving civilization in the process. One thing is for sure, if you never try you'll never achieve anything.

        It's really hard for any action positive or negative to matter 500 years from now. Even if we had a full blown nuclear war that wipes out 99% of the population, there's a good chance we'd be recovered from it by then. Global warming doesn't fit the profile of something that will matter. Sure the CO2 levels will be a little bit higher or lower, dependent on what we do now and

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        In dead it is what made America a success. People were free to invest in what they knew would pay dividends. I know I can get drunk and laugh at YOU, and I will have a great time doing it. Its worth the money!

        I don't know that going along with your pseudo science ( and that all it is, given 80% of the temperature monitoring stations have been found to be to close to man made radiators to produce ANY useful information ) and cutting carbon emissions will do anything other than pose unnessaray costs and bu

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Eukariote (881204)

      The science is lost entirely in the noise.

      Quite so. But if you listen/look carefully, you can still find some truth from scientists willing to speak out. See for example this interview on the sea-level fraud: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf [climatechangefacts.info]. Turns out that sea levels have not been rising.

    • Yes Bob. Today, the mayor of the island of Krakatoa held a city council meeting in the caldera of the volcano to draw attention to the fact that the island will, eventually, blow up again and to urge the world to find some way to stop plate tectonics and cool the core down until such a thing isn't possible anymore.

      Unfortunately, they forgot one thing Bob.

      THEY WERE IN THE CALDERA OF A VOLCANO!

      Needless to day, the loss of life was total, save for three councilmen who boycotted the meeting in protest.

      As of th

    • by Stevecrox (962208)
      Rather than moan why not take a positive view? Because of environment taxes we've gotten more energy efficient houses (cheaper to heat), new cars tend to drive well and do 50/60 MPG and we are beginning to properly diversify our energy needs so a lack of oil won't kill us for example:
      Many standard cars have electric versions available, the high carbon cost of a coal/gas/oil powered plants has made nuclear power viable once more (UK is replacing older plants with nuclear ones) and hydrogen using planes are
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18, 2009 @05:26AM (#29782865)
    They should totally pick the Middle East. Lots of land, friendly people...
  • Good idea (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious (631665)
    I think other countries should try it, but without the aqualungs.
  • No sympathy here... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18, 2009 @06:53AM (#29783117)

    I have no sympathy for a country that forces its people to convert to islam and subjects almost 1/3 of the population to a form of serfdom. In addition if you are not a muslim and a native then you are either executed, imprisoned or expelled. Finally the country is extremely racist when it comes to non-muslims. I've had the unfortunate pleasure of being sent to the main island a few times for work. While the country is very pretty the people are not with the exception of the lowly peasants.

  • To get a perspective on the Maldives, start here [wikimapia.org] and then click to zoom in 14 times. I suggest opening the link in a new tab or window (Slashdot code won't let me make the link tag do that for you).

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      (Slashdot code won't let me make the link tag do that for you).

      You mean to me. I am an adult, and I can choose when I would like to open a link in a new window. I think I've earned that right by now.

      • by Skapare (16644)

        You can always override it. The settings allow a default. Most people I have talked to prefer a new tab or new window for links to pages they are going to navigate on and come back. Many people know how to do it as apparently you do. Most don't, surprisingly. And many probably won't know this page needs it at first without the suggestion. I have made such a suggestion before only to be told by several how to make the tag do it (I already know how but they expected me to do it for them). Alas, in Slas

  • by Eukariote (881204) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:29AM (#29783211)

    The following interview Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedisch expert on sea-level geophysics, explains how the data has been misrepresented to feed the global warming scare http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf [climatechangefacts.info]. The reality is that little has happened to the sea level over the past decades.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      The reality is that little has happened to the sea level over the past decades.

      Just as a quick math problem, why don't you figure out how many gallons of water are represented by a one inch rise in sea level. Now calculate how many gallons of water will be added to the ocean when the ice on top of Alaska and Greenland finishes melting. A small delta can be extremely relevant.

      P.S. It doesn't matter if the floating ice masses grow during this time, for the same reason that ocean level rise can't be driven by floating ice melting. Don't forget to forget to take that into account.

      • by Skapare (16644)

        You can do it in liters and meters if you're not an American.

      • by Eukariote (881204)

        Now calculate how many gallons of water will be added to the ocean when the ice on top of Alaska and Greenland finishes melting. A small delta can be extremely relevant.

        It is only going to be relevant if the ice on top of Alaska and Greenland is actually going to melt substantially. Please do show us some credible data to that effect.

        In the mean time, let me show you some data on Antarctica, which holds 90% of the world's land ice and as such is the most interesting place to look at when it comes to anticip

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xyrus (755017)

      A rather discredited expert. Anyone want to take his course on dowsing?

      The site (ClimateChangeFacts) reads like any other number of "skeptic" sites. Lots of speculation backed by bogus claims and zero peer reviewed research to back up their claims.

      I want a model, skeptics. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 does not impact global climate and yet still explains our observational data. Go ahead. I'll wait.

      ~X~

  • Photo Gallery (Score:3, Informative)

    by gaanagaa (784648) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [aaganaag]> on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:46AM (#29783275) Journal
    Photo Gallery http://surl.me/2c67 [surl.me] (Flickr)
  • by syousef (465911) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @07:58AM (#29783327) Journal

    I have an idea. Let's do the same in Australia. The way our politicians carry on booing, jeering, calling each other names and such is disgraceful. (Actually I'm resisting the urge to suggest a 1 hour meeting under water WITHOUT the scuba gear). I guess it's similar the world over. No wonder we're in the economic, social and environmental crapper.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ant P. (974313)

      At least your politicians have the balls to say what they think of each other instead of saccharine-coating everything with fake political correctness.

  • I welcome our new warming climate overlords (and cheaper scuba gear prices).

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @09:15AM (#29783667) Journal
    Right now, everybody is after the west (including the west) to address Climage change and help little nations deal with this. Mostly by putting cap/trad on OUR energy to address this. But will it work?
    it would work if all else remains static. Sadly, that is not the case. China is adding 1-2 NEW COAL PLANTS EACH WEEK. These are .5GW size plants. Worse, the coal is inferior coal. It is very low grade coal with heavy pollutants. Then add in the new cars and oil based transportation that is happening in China.
    Even with the growth in hydro and wind and Solar and Nukes that China is planning, if they continue this course, they will exceed ALL OF AMERICA's emission by 2015. By 2018, they will exceed ALL OF America's AND Western EU. By 2020 (11 very short years), they will account for slightly more than 1/2 of all of the CO2 that man has emitted through history. IOW, all of the cuts that we do, will be worthless.
    But it still get worse. In particular, once we push Cap/trade, other nations will have a strong incentive to grab our manufacturing. And who will be pushing "cheap" coal plants? GE coal and other companies. Many companies will work to take advantage of the difference in prices (labor and energy).
    So, with knowing the above, how do drop the emissions and solve the climate change issues? Here is my idea.
    1. All western countries need to cap their single point emissions right away. IOW, no increase in emissions from Coal, Cement, etc. Obviously, emissions from transportation (which is diffuse emissions and difficult to control). Ideally, other nations would join, but that is not likely. But the west CAN and should cap it.
    2. Put a sliding tax on ALL GOODS at point of retail sale. It must be based on CO2 emissions FROM THE COUNTRY of main assembly AND the main material AND the transportation of item. Base the CO2 emissions from satellite. The tax needs to be applied as a percentage based on the above items. For example, assume something is assembled in Canada, from Canadian oil. Canada has one of the lower emissions in terms of size as well as high efficiency in terms of GDP. In addition, the transportation costs are extremely low, assuming rail. As such, they may have to pay only 5% of whatever the tax is.
      OTH, China has moderate amount of emissions based on size, HOWEVER, is one of the lowest efficiency in emissions/GDP. In addition, it has extremely high transportation costs (rail in China, then boat to here, and then rail around). As such, they would have 90-100% of the tax.
      American goods made here have a moderate emissions per land and moderate efficient emissions. OTH, our transportation emissions are minor. As such, we might see 30-40% of the tax.

    Several points on this:

    • This must be applied to ALL GOODS. If we apply it only to imported goods, then it will be illegal per WTO. Likewise, if we apply it only to local goods, it would simply be the same as the Dem's Cap/Trade; Worthless.
    • It really needs to be a sliding scale to reward those nations that clean up their act.
    • the base tax MUST start low to not kill economies and then INCREASE over time. If a business knows that the tax will increase, it gives them time to adjust their plans. If we hit it fast with high taxes, it will destroy economies.

    Ideally, this same approach is used for a number of pollutants. For example, Mercury is one that is screaming to be controlled. China is the largest polluter of it and it will continue to increase with the coal. Likewise, the same is true of their SO* emissions. By applying a slowly increasing tax on nations based on their emissions, we can encourage ALL NATIONS to change.
    One last point. Many nations will scream that they should be exempt because they are Developing nations. If that is done, it will simply encourage them to have lower costs goods by cheating. In addition, nearly all of the smaller developing nations HAVE low emissions. They would be at the low end of the tax.

  • by cluge (114877) on Sunday October 18, 2009 @09:33AM (#29783747) Homepage

    As evidence mounts that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn't the disaster the chicken littles have been preaching for the last 2 decades, the more dramatic, outlandish, and shrill the commentary will become. Expect to see more of these stunts from both countries and entities expecting to receive a big pay day from the industrialized nations, while the evidence points to a theory that needs serious revising and models that aren't very accurate at the most basic of predictions.

    To date a lot of the proxy data [climateaudit.org] used to bolster the claim that the observed warming trend was "unprecedented" turns out to be extremely poorly put together. The recent Briffa revelations are so bad and Briffa so resistant to releasing his data (which is contrary to scientific methodology) that one has to wonder if there was deliberate fraud. In climate research this has happened before. The original, discredited Mann hockey stick was another example where a researcher refused to release both data and methodology, and when forced to told the world that data was lost (until it was found by accident on his FTP server [climateaudit.org]). Both examples are indications that peer review in some fields is nothing more than a cliquish acceptance of a forgone conclusion.

    Perhaps this stunt will bring attention to the matter that current understanding of AGW is poor at best and that current climate models are woafully inadequate (and perhaps a tad overly dramatic). More research is needed and more importantly the people conducting that research need to strictly adhere to scientific method if we are to have a clear view of the mechanisms that shape our climate and what the human population effect on it.

    Final Thought : Having researchers act like a group of 14 year old girls that decide who is "in" and who is "out" isn't science - it's dogma. It does little to advance the course of science - but it makes great reading. Better drama than day time TV.

    • I'm no climatologist (and I assume you are not either), so I cannot say with authority whether or not global warming exists. I see lots of evidence on both sides of the issue. But even the right-wing Thomas Donohue, head of the fricken U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE admits that global warming is real. And if there were any reliable evidence whatsoever to disprove AGW, then he would be the one person who would be all over it. But he's not. He admits it's real (although he fights tooth-and-nail about what we s
      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        The problem is the debate is phrased wrong. Much like religious people who are anti-evolution are actually anti-natural selection (something entirely different.) In this case, people knee-jerk the debate as "does it exist" vs. "does it not exist."

        But that's not the point. The real debate is, "what should we *do* about it?" (And yes, "nothing" is a completely valid answer.)

        There are lots of claiming flying around about the effects of global warming, sea-level changes (so far these seem to be bunk), climate c

  • That was a nice public stunt. I don't think any news show on the planet is willing to miss on that one.
    And of course I can't imagining anyone seeing a beautiful tropic island go forever.

    I only hope that as many people as possible will from now on always have to think about them just destroying a beautiful place that they at least wanted to see once, when doing something that raises sea levels.

    Unfortunately, with the biggest polluters being companies, that can afford making 13 senators openly defend gang rap

  • Unnecessary propaganda.
    How long have these islands be over the sea?
    Did they ever take a real look at that?
    Was that 500 years? 1500? 5000 years?

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Working...