Climate change castaways?

posted at 4:45 pm on January 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, is sick and tired of you people and your huge carbon footprints and he wants you to know it. In fact, so worried is their leader about climate change causing the seas to rise and swallow up his islands, he’s saving up his money to move his entire population to Australia.

THE President of what could be the first country in the world lost to climate change has urged Australia to prepare for a mass wave of climate refugees seeking a new place to live.

The Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, said his government was considering Australia as a possible new home if the tiny archipelago disappears beneath rising seas.

”It is increasingly becoming difficult to sustain the islands, in the natural manner that these islands have been,” he told the Herald in an interview in Male, the Maldives capital…

The country has established a sovereign wealth fund, drawn from its tourist revenue, to be used to buy land overseas and finance the relocation of the country’s population of 350,000.

Australia, for its climate and abundance of space, along with Sri Lanka and India, for their proximity and cultural similarities, are the three countries the President has identified as possible destinations.

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a “rainy day fund,” doesn’t it? But I suppose it pays to plan ahead, even though Nils-Axel Mörner, a sea-level expert from Sweden, sent President Nasheed a letter some time ago telling him that the sea levels weren’t actually rising.

October 20, 2009
To: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives
From: Nils-Axel Mörner, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message…

Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.
(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today
(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level
(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

The Maldives actually are disappearing, for what it’s worth. But as Fausta notes, some of the good people of the island nation may be mistaking beach erosion for rising sea levels. Beach erosion happens, and it’s a serious concern. Many sea-side communities in the United States have been spending millions of dollars fighting it ever since the bad old days when we were fighting anthropogenic global cooling. (I’m sorry… that was probably rude, wasn’t it?)

Oh… Fausta noted one other point as well. If the Maldives are in imminent danger of going all Water World on us, why are they building a new airport?

Tim Blair points out that Nasheed Then … attended a ceremony to mark the construction of a new airport.

New airport? When the country’s supposedly going to be swallowed by the waves at any moment?

If they actually do all pack up and leave, I wonder what it would cost to buy the place lock, stock and floating barrels? I understand they’ve got some of the best scuba diving in the world.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Now you’re touting the broad depth of non climate scientists who are faithful believers.

Yes, how else can you respond to the contention that science is fabricated at US universities in order to obtain governments grants?

I suspect that you are in for a nasty surprise if the cyclic theory of Global Climate Change is proven correct by our entering a cooling age.

Now, that is one theory that I hope is wrong because Global Cooling will be far more a death knell than warming would ever be. Life on earth has historically flourished during warm periods and diminished during cooling periods.

Yes, now I see that you do presume to have a better grasp on global warming science than the ‘experts’. And doubt the best and brightest across the scientific community.

Hopefully you won’t reach a similar decision regarding the actually non-existent danger posed by child vaccinations related to autism or decide to override the advice of doctors if you’re diagnosed with cancer.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

CW on January 7, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Don’t get me wrong. That does settle that. Your comment wiped out his, nice and clean.

Additionally:

And your list is laughable. No one cares about a list that includes a ‘broadcaster of the year’ or persons with masters degrees in random fields unrelated to climate science.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Ummm, pls indulge me a question: Which one of these is in a field related to climate science:

Seriously, who are you referring to? Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, or the late and great Steve Jobs? Which great minds in this country have concluded that global climate research is nonsense?

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Answer: None.

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

No… and this may be difficult for you to grasp but that’s not relevant because I don’t presume to have the capacity to fully comprehend the massive amount of scientific research in this feild fo study and reach broad conclusions as to its implications…
 
bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:11 PM

 
You’ve unwittingly hit on something there. I hope it’s not indicative of how our educational system is instructing our young people and I won’t tie it to political or voting trends, but:
 
You seem to believe science is something more than it is. At every level it is nothing more than:
 
1) Observe
2) Form a hypothesis
3) Perform an experiment to test hypothesis
4) Accept or reject hypothesis
 
Science, from the silliest 7th grade frog-jumping experiment to a 100 year study on algal growth in the arctic, MUST involve nothing more than that. If it does, it’s not science.
 
If a hypothesis can’t withstand scrutiny (accept/reject), then it’s no longer science.

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM

The term is falsifiability. It’s extremely important in the scientific field.

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You mean, broadly speaking, there is no voting?

If it fails, it has to be discarded, irrespective of how many people want to keep believing it?

Axe on January 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Oh Yeah. No rise in temps in 13 years!!! F(n) Indians and Chinese just aren’t industrializind fast enough…

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Hopefully you won’t reach a similar decision regarding the actually non-existent danger posed by child vaccinations related to autism or decide to override the advice of doctors if you’re diagnosed with cancer.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Wow one fallacious argument after another.

1. You were not asked to create a model.

2. You weren’t even given a level of accuracy .

Do you know how to read? What feild is your area of proficiency?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Answer: None.

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Hilarious.Nailed.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM

rogerb

You hit it almost exactly.

The first unexplained observation EVER sends us back to the beginning.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I have asked my Computer Model question in every debate such as this for years and have never received an answer.

Hey, Bayam, I’m not a scientist. I’m just a now retired old lady who was primarily a stay at home Mom and bookkeeper when the kids flew the coop but I can think. I’ve spent many many hours on the net investigating AGW, now called AGC (Anthropogenic Global Change) because we just might be going into Global Cooling and no one can dispute that one immutable constant is that weather changes no matter how small or large the increment of time involved.

You should give it a try sometimes and not just sign onto whatever is popular at any given time.

Grammie on January 7, 2012 at 7:03 PM

If a hypothesis can’t withstand scrutiny (accept/reject), then it’s no longer science.

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM

And if it can’t be proven and/or the experiment replicated, then it’s still just a hypothesis. The burden of proof, of course, remains on the hypothesizer.

Pots-modernists have always been anti-scientific. Probably there’s a less in it about Progressive AGW somewhere.

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Pots-modernists?

Typo or Freudian slip?

petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM

You should give it a try sometimes and not just sign onto whatever is popular at any given time.

Grammie on January 7, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Do you notice that Bayam plays dumb when it is convenient?

Oh and you have to love her dismissing thousands of scientists who are much smarter than her than using a college dropout like Gates as an expert. Obviously Gates is very smart but he is not trained in the climate or physics.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

It’s amazing to me- I’ll never comprehend how people on the right can broadly label such a large and amorphous segment of people as forces of dishonesty and immorality based on such scant evidence.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Two words, chief. Climate and Gate. The epitome of dishonesty and immorality.

hoofhearted on January 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

bayam you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Your talk of agreement among scientists is trumped up baloney, as is the ‘science.’ As I said, only 19% of Republicans believe in man-made global warming. There’s a stark left – right on an issue that is about politics, not science. You can take your schtick to the Daily Kos.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Not to mention a fine human heritage. ::ahem::

OldEnglish on January 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Climategate II stung eh Bayam

The new batch of emails, over 5,300 in all (compared with about 1,000 in the 2009 release), contains a number of fresh embarrassments and huge red flags for the same lovable bunch of insider scientists. It stars the same cast, starting with the Godfather of the CRU, Phil “hide the decline” Jones, and featuring Michael “hockey stick” Mann once again in his supporting role as the Fredo of climate science, blustering along despite the misgivings and doubts of many of his peers. Beyond the purely human element, the new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climategate-part-ii_610926.html

Hmmm and you wonder why so many are skeptical.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM

1. You were not asked to create a model.

2. You weren’t even given a level of accuracy .

Do you know how to read? What feild is your area of proficiency?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

40 minutes is enough time for an answer Bayam.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM

These muslim frauds can move to Saudi Arabia. Get close to others of the Religion of Peace rather than prey on Australians.

pat on January 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM
Not to mention a fine human heritage. ::ahem::

OldEnglish on January 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Absolutely!!!!

Why are they Pizzing it away??????

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

If Bayam is a woman (implied above) I have to stop. Stoning is not in my nature.

(but it sure was fun) Maybe a poor defenseless wall next.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Bayam comprehend much?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I suspect that Bayam is very young and believes fervently.

I disputed AGW back when a substantial majority believed in it fervently. But then I had the advantage of having lived thru the about 20 year cycle of the media pushing the coming Ice Age, then Hot Age, back to Ice, then AGW and the first glimmers of Ice again.

Every last time there was a consensus among scientists, to which I say Galileo was right. Yet Algore et al will persist in calling me and others of like mind heretics.

Consensus, contrary to what most of our children are being spoon fed, is not a scientific principle but rather a political ploy.

Grammie on January 7, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Why are they Pizzing it away??????

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Outnumbered by the heritage of the Normans?

OldEnglish on January 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

40 minutes is enough time for an answer Bayam.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Here’s some more for bayam to ponder.

1) How did those boulders end up in Central Park.

2) Why does Minnesota have so many lakes?

Since we don’t want to waste 40 more minutes waiting, I’ll give the answer.

Receding glaciers about 12,000 years ago. The SUVs back then must have been extreme carbon emitters.

hoofhearted on January 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Outnumbered by the heritage of the Normans?

OldEnglish on January 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Not really. They just moved out earlier in the migration era. Heck, even the middle easterners and hindus came from this stock.

Gotta love northern europe (save the politics) from which so much greatness sprung.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Stoning is not in my nature.
 
WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM

 
It’s weird that there are distinct fundamentalist overtones from the anthropogenic believers, too.
 
Submit, pay a tax for your non-belief, or die. Why does that sound familiar?

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Or prove me wrong- if there’s so much opposition to global warning, name ONE major US research university that falls into that camp. Of course you can’t.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Every major research university believes it, yet not one has come out with a single correct conclusion yet. Amazing. Yet you still don’t question the dogma of AGW.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The burden of proof, of course, remains on the hypothesizer.
 
petefrt on January 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

 
An often forgotten (or outright neglected) and extremely good point.

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Receding glaciers about 12,000 years ago. The SUVs back then must have been extreme carbon emitters.

hoofhearted on January 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Hey…..My expedition has 240K and still going……

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Hmmmm, religion of the Maldives is Muslim.

Seems to me, if my geography is correct, most middle easter countries are not only muslim, but have lots of sand.

I would suggest that these guys get together, ship boatloads of sand and pray to allah that it sticks where they dump it.

joelj31 on January 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Receding glaciers about 12,000 years ago. The SUVs back then must have been extreme carbon emitters.

hoofhearted on January 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Oh..Oh…Oh….I know this one…..The OWS people grew really old

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Sorry screwed that one

It was in reference to the boulders in central park

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM

It’s weird that there are distinct fundamentalist overtones from the anthropogenic believers, too.

Submit, pay a tax for your non-belief, or die. Why does that sound familiar?

rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

because “it’s good to be the king”

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

The Jersey Meadowlands, the Hudson River and Long Island are all remnants of now receded glaciers, as well.

PKO Strany on January 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Bayam should go see the Glacial Grooves State Memorial on Kelleys Island in Lake Erie. It is a monument that forever celebrates man over nature. We did away with the Glaciers so that we could have Lake Erie and the other great lakes. Genius. Man is incredible.

CW on January 7, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Well… I have an observation about those who embrace the AGW ‘science’ and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the evidence that those ‘scientists’ have been tampering with the evidence and using poor methodology to achieve the results that profits them most:

True science is objective. Always. It measures ALL of the available evidence and considers it from an OBJECTIVE viewpoint, divorced of ideology or political inclination. It relies solely on FACT… i.e. those proofs that can be verified, by others using he same methodology,under the same conditions. Any other result or posit, no matter how attractive to the investigator, is deemed a THEORY. Precisely because it lacks that concrete laboratory proof and the ability of others to duplicate it under the same conditions. Even Einstein operated under this system and accepted it. hence, THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. I note here that all theories are NOT created equal, and that some theories are more valid, and valuable, than others.

If the AGW groups cannot offer CONCRETE IRREFUTABLE PROOFS for their position or claim,(and thus far, not only can they not offer concrete and irrefutable proofs, that the current warming cycle is not entirely natural and has nothing or, at least, very little, to do with the activity of humans) they are merely advancing theories, and theory cannot be fully vested as fact.

thatsafactjack on January 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Splain this, bayam.

From livescience.com

A timeline of Sahara occupation:

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.

9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

It must have been those darn SUVs again.

hoofhearted on January 7, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Basically all I have to say is read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton.

TIdbIT on January 7, 2012 at 8:16 PM

That’s great, you’ve found the 3 or 4 out of hundreds of scientists in the opposing camp. It amounts to nothing. So please educate us- name one major US research university that dissents with climate change theory.

Oh, heavens no. I just posted a few. If you need more scientists, American scientists, who believe there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate, you can visit the global warming petition.

31,847 American scientists as of this posting. If you want to know what universities they work at, you’ll have to do your own research. Typical liberal, always asking others to do their work.

Let me guess.. you’re not a scientist yourself. But you feel it necessary to help educate idiots like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and in his time, Steve Jobs,

These gentlemen are not on a forum making a fool of themselves, denying science that has proven global warming is not taking place. I suspect they are too busy making money…you know, being the evil “corporatists,” and creating jobs that force deadbeat liberals off the professional welfare system.

Keep clicking around the net and enriching those stupid liberals. And don’t worry about how it works behind the scenes, the idiots have figured it all out for you.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Will do. I’ll stick with the science and the exposed fraud in the climate gates, you can stick with Al “I’m gonna make a killing off this scam” Gore and the hucksters whose fraud has been exposed.

You liberals are so anti-science.

BruthaMan on January 7, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Do you notice that Bayam plays dumb when it is convenient?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Bayam PLAYS dumb??? Surely you jest…

climbnjump on January 7, 2012 at 8:40 PM

James Delingpole, of the UK DAILY TELEGRAPH,( find his articles on Climate Change archived there) broke the AGW scandal knows as “Climategate” when he printed the leaked Emails from those scientists involved at East Anglia. These emails proved, in the academics own words, that they had purposely manipulated the evidence to make the case for their chosen position on AGW.

That’s not science. That’s politics and merchandising.

In the latest batch of emails these scientists and others have admitted that they purposely suppressed evidence that their theory is flatly wrong, they bullied and vilified their fellow scientists for not helping them to manipulate evidence in a calculated attempt to falsify the evidence of AGW ( which they had since re-branded as “Climate Change” in, perhaps, one of the most ridiculous attempts to make ALL weather events serve as ‘proof’ for their theory).

Again, this is not science. “Peer Reviews” grafted from magazine articles written by non-scientists are not science. The willful silencing of dissenting opinion and suppression of contradictory evidence is not science.

If a person chooses to believe something based solely on their own desire, or emotional need, to believe it in the face of a lack of direct evidence, its called FAITH. Many have decided to embrace AGW in just such a fashion. For them, AGW is a matter of faith and the fulfillment of an emotional need. Its futile to attempt to use logic to reason with people whose believe is based in faith and emotion.

thatsafactjack on January 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

thatsafactjack on January 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Killjoy! :)

OldEnglish on January 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

That’s not science. That’s politics and merchandising.

Yes, it’s a global conspiracy driven by greedy scientists pursuing research dollars. And that’s why the nation’s top scientists at the Academy of Scientists and every major research university outside the US also find the the conclusions of climate research valid.

Oh and you have to love her dismissing thousands of scientists who are much smarter than her than using a college dropout like Gates as an expert. Obviously Gates is very smart but he is not trained in the climate or physics.

I’m not dismissing thousands of scientists. I’m concurring with the tens of thousands, including the most highly respected scientists in their fields. You have trouble accepting the concept of scientific consensus.

So Gates isn’t that intelligent and dropped out of Harvard (and you could easily take sr. position at Microsoft, Apple, or Google but don’t feel like it. )
Is your answer to listen to the most qualified, the best and brightest?

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

AGW is a matter of faith and the fulfillment of an emotional need. I

It’s funny how those who attack a body of research with clear political motivations, do so by attacking the objectivity of scientists.

Beyond the corrupt and immoral American scientists, it’s just shocking that the best and brightest in Russia, China, and Germany also fall into the climate conspiracy camp. One of these days I know that I’ll hear an explanation to rationalize it.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

So Gates isn’t that intelligent and dropped out of Harvard (and you could easily take sr. position at Microsoft, Apple, or Google but don’t feel like it. )

Is your answer to listen to the most qualified, the best and rightest?

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Being an expert at one thing does not make someone an expert at another. If you someday need to have surgery performed on your brain, will you be asking one of the experts at Microsoft, Apple or Google to crack open your head?

climbnjump on January 7, 2012 at 9:12 PM

It’s funny how those who attack a body of research with clear political motivations, do so by attacking the objectivity of scientists.

Beyond the corrupt and immoral American scientists, it’s just shocking that the best and brightest in Russia, China, and Germany also fall into the climate conspiracy camp. One of these days I know that I’ll hear an explanation to rationalize it.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Hey Bayam. When you are bored sometime, instead of waiting for everyone to leave the thread, google the name Lysenko.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Bayam, CONSENSUS is not, at least since shortly after Galileo succumbed to the pressure of the Inquisition, repeat NOT a scientific principle.

It has been pointed out to you, with impeccable scientific credentials such as Einstein to back it up, that consensus proves absolutely nothing scientifically.

You are a person of deep abiding FAITH in the Religion of AGW. Leave it at that.

Grammie on January 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

It’s funny how those who attack a body of research with clear political motivations, do so by attacking the objectivity of scientists.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

One one hand, there are “scientists” who have been caught “hiding” numbers, have refused to publish information so that “science” can validate it. Frauds. They’ve been outed and shown to be frauds, perpetuating the global warming hoax for profit. Hence Al Gore.

On the other hand, there are tens of thousands of scientists, not just in America, but around the world, who disagree with that “science” and have taken to task the credibility of those perpetuating this hoax. There are those who have proven, through the release of not just one, but two major email dumps from these corrupt and dishonest scientists that have clearly demonstrated they are hiding information in order to prop up the idea of global warming.

Junk science is just that. It’s junk science. Real scientists have discredited their data and have proven they are manipulating data for their own profitable agendas.

Global warming is not science, it’s a scam. The science are those who stood up to this hoax and discredited the data, called into question the lack of data, and exposed the corruption and dishonesty in those that were perpetuating this fraud with invalid data.

BruthaMan on January 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It’s funny how those who attack a body of research with clear political motivations, do so by attacking the objectivity of scientists.

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

LMFAO, clearly you don’t work with or interact with any scientists. Scientists are regular people that think they are smarter than everyone else. They mouth opinions and automatically think they are correct because, after all, they are scientists. The lie, cheat steal, etc…

Their objectivity ends where their humanity begins.

When the answer to the ‘problem’ is more socialism and reduced liberty

….I don’t give a F*#@ what the problem is, it’s liberals seeking power and meteing pain.

tom daschle concerned on January 7, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Has this president heard of “beach erosion”? I lived in Key Biscayne, FL, for 4 years, an island off the coast of Miami that is either at 0 or negative value against sea level height (can remember exactly now). The beach lost was due to natural erosion, even worse due to common tropical storms (or the occasional hurricane). There was even a year long project in 2003 to recover the beach (stretching it by dragging sand from far off the coast). Almost 10 years later the beach is as eroded as it was before the project.

Mohamed Nasheed is either one of two things: a), a fool who has drunk the AGW cool aid and vows to the nonsense of this cult, or b) (and most likely), a politician from a small (third world) nation that sees the economic benefit that a blind belief in global warming would have to his nation and his pocket.

ptcamn on January 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Until the much-touted “computer models” can actually demonstrate predictive validity and reproducibility (which requires FULL PUBLICATION AND DISCLOSURE and INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS), they are no more credible than the babbling of a toddler…no matter how many eggheads and/or idiots vote “present” or “I believe”.

Science is a search for truth, and truth is not subject to a vote.

landlines on January 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM

I’ve seen proof of dramatic natural sea level rise through my own dive mask off Belize. How’s 69 feet of global ocean rise in the last 15,000 years? That’s a whole lot of water- pretty much all before the industrial revolution, I believe. Stalactites don’t form underwater(at least in earth’s gravity)- that’s settled science for you. (The deepest ones are at 299 feet and are around 15 feet in diameter, therefore very old). Grant-crazed ‘experts’ be damned. I have all the proof I need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole

It continues to amaze me how the cultists stamp their little feet in anger when confronted with any and all good news challenges to their belief that the world’s going to end due to climate change. Talk about issues…

Boomslang on January 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Bayam:
I have posted NOTHING that is an “attack” on you or any scientific body, or any of the many business persons, none of whom are climate scientists, most of whom are actually in computer technology, whom you’ve erroneously and improperly struggled to use to justify your believe system.

As I said in my earlier post, I’m merely offering a logical observation regarding the nature of real science and the pseudo-science that you’ve been spouting regarding AGW.

But, since you press your fallacious and, I must say, offensive, since it insults the intelligence of rational people, argument, I’ll make my own position clear.

AGW is dead. Is dead as a theory, having roundly been discredited by INTERNATIONAL scholars and scientists, and its dead as an extortion tool meant to redistribute massive amounts of money from developed nations to others. It died right around the time that the Emails from East Anglia were published, AKA “Climategate” and “Climategate II”, and when the AGW supporters rallied in Mexico City and actually prayed to the Mayan Moon Goddess…well…it took on a cult-like aspect, however, when many AGW fans immediately tried to claim that the EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI that hit Japan and destroyed the Fukushima Daishi reactors were caused by AGW… let’s just say that moment was the Coup de Grace for AGW.

Those defenders of AGW who insist that humans, and particularly the developed nations, are responsible for any meaningful warming in the cycle of the planetary climate have, by choosing to disregard any reasonable or logic evidence that doesn’t fit the AGW theory, rendered themselves ridiculous and relegated themselves to cult status.

thatsafactjack on January 7, 2012 at 11:05 PM

1. You were not asked to create a model.

2. You weren’t even given a level of accuracy .

Do you know how to read? What feild is your area of proficiency?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM

CW on January 7, 2012 at 11:09 PM

One common theme: Bayam simply believes because scientists say so. There is no ability to explain why the THEORY might be so but just blind faith.

Hey Bayam why don’t you answer my 631 pm post?

CW on January 7, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I do hope she follows this excellent suggestion:

Hey Bayam. When you are bored sometime, instead of waiting for everyone to leave the thread, google the name Lysenko.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Bayam, the answers you will find are so on point that the ideology that propped Lysenko up is very similiar to the motivating factor behind AGW.

Grammie on January 7, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Bayam doesn’t care about the truth of the argument. It was paid to be here, or it was otherwise profitable to be here for it…to spread the lie. These people need to be destroyed, they need to experience pain, they need to be discredited…oops, they already are!

tom daschle concerned on January 7, 2012 at 11:40 PM

The Aussies ought to jump on this one. Make a generous trade, twice the square mileage of the Maldives for a safe, high and dry corner of the outback. Let them build a city called Dingolabad. And the Aussies can take over the Islands and offer tourists to have their wedding vows renewed by drunken Aussie football hooligans posing as Clergy.

BL@KBIRD on January 7, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Whoa…Bayam took a beating here like a rented mule.

St Gaudens on January 8, 2012 at 12:25 AM

After reading this entire thread my only response to Bayam’s garbage is to quote Ron White: “you can’t fix stupid”.
Here’s your sign….

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2012 at 12:45 AM

So Gates isn’t that intelligent and dropped out of Harvard (and you could easily take sr. position at Microsoft, Apple, or Google but don’t feel like it. )
Is your answer to listen to the most qualified, the best and brightest?

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Gates is very intelligent. Should he also pick my daily wardrobe and draft my fantasy baseball team for me?

Why should I trust Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates on *climate science*? It’s not what they studied. It isn’t their business, it’s not how they make their money. They’re not climate experts, bayam.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 8, 2012 at 3:03 AM

bayam stirred the pot and then went to bed a long time ago. It has this cut-and-paste routine. That’s what it does.

Yoop on January 8, 2012 at 3:42 AM

bayam stirred the pot and then went to bed a long time ago. It has this cut-and-paste routine. That’s what it does.
 
Yoop on January 8, 2012 at 3:42 AM

 
Yoop’s right, but there’s a strong chance that there are undecided and/or skeptical readers out there who have gotten a bit of momentum from the Climate Gate emails but still aren’t ready to commit to the idea of scientists being corrupt and ideologically driven.
 
These sort of threads are mostly for them.
 
Science is extremely simple. Faith in science as an incomprehensible religion (Bayam’s “I don’t presume to have the capacity to fully comprehend the massive amount of scientific research“) and the subsequent belief in scientific holy men is what makes the discussion hard.

rogerb on January 8, 2012 at 7:58 AM

8-)

Akzed on January 8, 2012 at 8:09 AM

The Maldives aren’t just building one new airport according to Watt’s Up With That- they’re building ELEVEN of them.

How seriously are they taking the problem? And how much of this is about obtaining more green aid money from the West?

Jay Mac on January 8, 2012 at 8:57 AM

The Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed,

That would be of the Southern Irish Nasheed clan, right?
Has nothing to do with the Australians don’t want Muslims imposing their religion on their country or anything to do with more money for “Climate Change Justice.”

barnone on January 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I think the Maldivians have a lawsuit winding it’s way through some intl court or the UN against the US and any other developed nation with any dough left. Of course, this can’t be all about the money and they are building those airports to effect their final escape when the waves do come crashing over their posh seaside high rises. Didn’t this same group just ban massages? No reason why was given, but they must have gotten word from the local mullah.

Kissmygrits on January 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Hey Bayam. When you are bored sometime, instead of waiting for everyone to leave the thread, google the name Lysenko.

WryTrvllr on January 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Bingo.

History repeats itself. When you hear ‘man-made global warming’, just think ‘Lysenkoism’. Politicizing science kept the Russian economy deep in the tank for decades. It will do that here too, if we let it.

petefrt on January 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I didn’t see any posts in this thread from the esteemed Oakland lauding the benefits of the scientific consensus……

Babsy on January 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM

It’s funny how those who attack a body of research with clear political motivations

bayam on January 7, 2012 at 8:59 PM

What’s funny and clearly political is that the only fix for global warming, in a happy coincidence, is every leftist’s wet dream of massive new taxes and absolute control over every facet of every person’s life.

RJL on January 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Phil Jones at East Anglia University destroyed his data rather than comply with a Freedom Of Information Act request so that “other scientists cannot use my data against me.”
Now that’s the kind of science Bayam can get behind.

lfwest on January 8, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Bayam is right, Climatologists are great scientists, and you’re not one so shut up.

When I was a kid I was told we’d lose 75% of the world’s population to the glaciers and ended crops due to mankind’s freezing of the earth… and we didn’t listen. BOOM 4 trillion dead.

The Warming came, and by 2000 the earth would be uninhabitable, and we’d all drown and die… but we didn’t listen. BOOM 6 trillion dead.

Then the UN clarified by 2010 the seas would rise, wars would be started over resources, and we still didn’t listen. BOOM 2 trillion dead in the warming resource wars.

And now you want to doubt these geniuses? We’ve had 12 Trillion people, fully 200% of the population of the world die off; and you still won’t listen?

Everyone has died twice due to you not accepting science… why won’t you listen?

Oh… everyone on the planet didn’t die twice already? It’s the fact that they keep making the predictions that never come true that makes you not believe them?

No worries, I’m sure Bayam can explain why you need to trust the lunatic who has a “the world will end next month” sandwich-board this time; because this time he’s 100% accurate and believable; just ignore the past 40 years when he’s been wrong every month until now…

That or I can keep listing the “expected” changes from the climate science that have failed to materialize time and again, and you can explain why a theory failing to give results doesn’t mean the theory is in any way flawed.

Wasn’t snow in the UK and D.C. both (in separate claims) supposed to be a thing of the past as of the year 2000? Has it quit snowing in D.C. or the UK?

How about the massive unbelievably damaging hurricane seasons that will only get worse every year? Not sure I recall hearing about any hurricanes in the past two… were they so damaging nobody lived to report the damage?

Let me guess, if we don’t change and stop all industrial action within the next 10 years we’ll be too late… just like we’ve been told for the past 40 years.

Why didn’t we cross that point 30 years ago? Or 20 years ago? Or last year? Why do we always have 5-10 years in which to hand over all industrial and economic control to the scientists who just want to help? Wouldn’t that timer run out if they were doing real science with real numbers instead of trying their hand at extortion and changing their demands to give us “just one more chance” to pay them off?

And why would I trust someone demanding power, claiming the world will end, missing expectations, failing at predictions, and trying to grab unprecedented power?

I guess when the numbers, science, predictions, claims, and data don’t back you; get Bayam he’ll still believe in you.

Bayam, be careful… it’s nice to be trusting; but I’m afraid you might end up in a cult if you don’t learn to be a little bit more suspicious of people and their claims.

gekkobear on January 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM

gekkobear on January 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM

ROFLMAO!
Bayam already IS in a cult – the algore church AGW.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2