Disputed Island Disappears Into Sea 460
RawJoe writes "India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them: the island's gone. From the article: 'New Moore Island, in the Sunderbans, has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said. "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.'"
Re:Reminds me of kids. (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's not like its completely gone now. According to the article the sea level is raising 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) an year, so the water is only just a little bit over the land. Lay over some sand, wood, whatever and you have land again - or build those wooden houses on piers. Venice is also build on top of water in the middle of a lagoon.
Re:Hey, wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they're sure that the Earth has been warming up. What they are not so sure about is if humans have any meaningful impact on the warming or if it is just mostly the natural heat/cool cycle at work.
Given that where I live was under a glacier 11,000 years ago IMO a little extra help warming wouldn't hurt... a new ice age would be far more destructive to humans than a higher sea level due to warming.
Re:Hey, wait a minute (Score:1, Interesting)
Indeed, this is the sort of reasonable stand I'd prefer to see (and would get the whole issue back on track, I'd hope, since most people are arguing one extreme or the other). Whether or not we're causing it or making it a lot worse, we may as well try and reduce our potential impact as well as dependence on the sorts of products that aren't exactly of infinite supply.
Re:Hey, wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Given that where I live was under a glacier 11,000 years ago IMO a little extra help warming wouldn't hurt...
It might not have been that long ago. During the Mini-Ice Age from 1200-1850 the glaciers moved forward again, covering various places that are today dry.
Imagine if this were the year 1800, and the former Vice-president was warning us about global warming. Technically he would be right, but the warming wasn't humans fault. It was merely a natural cycle, and a return to the climate that existed pre-1200.
Re:HEY now. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because islands can't lose land mass. The only reason islands are "created" or are "deleted" (hehe) is the sea level...
Plus, we all know that anything (read: including localized events) that COULD come from warming global temperatures is caused by "global warming" which is really AGW. On the other hand, any localized events that appear to contradict AGW are just localized events and can't enter into the debate.
Me? Cynical?
Re:Hey, wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
That's news to me. So who funds the scientists' PR departments?
Well, they don't call them PR departments, true. They call them Environmental lobby groups. Groups like the David Suzuki Foundation in Canada, who do actually do good science, but also release press releases that rely more on PR gibberish than actual data. As I said earlier, I don't blame them for doing so, because they need to get their message in a format that most people understand. But it makes things harder for people like me who want to evaluate the evidence.
(1) I'm a law student, not a climatologist
Well, then your opinions on climatology aren't worth much then, are they?
That's exactly my problem. I want to become reasonably informed about global warming, but I don't have time to go get the appropriate degree, and nobody out there is boiling stuff down to layman's terms so I can make a reasonably informed decision. Instead we get the climate deniers on one hand, who think that volume=debate, and people like you on the other hand, who stoop to insult and "just trust me, I'm a scientist" rhetoric on the other hand. You didn't even bother to ask me which side of the debate I support, before attacking my position and making an argument from the perceived authority of "tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers", none of which I have ever read or am capable of understanding.
For the record, I believe that we should be drastically reducing carbon emissions to mitigate any effect humans are having on the change in climate. I've been intentionally obfuscating this position because (1) climate debates on slashdot always devolve into Holy Wars, thanks to people like you and (2) my support for this position is based more on risk assessment and other incidental effects of reducing carbon dependence than it is on a true understanding of the core of the debate, and this makes me uncomfortable.
Re:Reminds me of kids. (Score:0, Interesting)
That'd be because "Israel", formerly known as Palestine, was given away by the British to the Jewish. Understandably the locals were a little bit miffed at that.
First of all, show me a map that ever showed Palestine as an independent entity. Or one that predates the original founding of Israel that occurred 2500+ years ago. Jews have lived in that area is significant numbers since the original founding. Oh, and by the way, the British opposed the creation of Israel, and the mass immigration of jews to the area when they pulled out of the middle east. So how does that count as giving it away?
If you are going to make an argument, fabricate better facts so you are at least believable.