Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I wonder where some of these people get their degrees from.

Jim, that is possibly a part of the problem.
Giving someone a degree makes them believe that their opinion is more valid than another person.
Unfortunately, the education system now pushes everyone towards a degree, so they would be better just to put applications on the back of Weetabix packets. Send off with three special pack coupons, and Bob's your uncle, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Barry

Jim, that is possibly a part of the problem.
Giving someone a degree makes them believe that their opinion is more valid than another person.
Unfortunately, the education system now pushes everyone towards a degree, so they would be better just to put applications on the back of Weetabix packets. Send off with three special pack coupons, and Bob's your uncle, so to speak.

That made me smile, then I realised that there is a lot of truth in that...now I'm not smiling..

Hi,

Barry - why fill in an application on a wheatabix packet when you can fill in the degree certificate on line!

Most of the so called academics I have had dealings with would cut their finger trying to cut out the application form on a wheetaibix packet!

Men amongst boys - boys amongst men!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I have done some background checking of this Lady and her research. She is a paid up member of the Green Party and her research is paid for not only from public funds, but also the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the IPCC...So she is biased at all then.

What a ridiculous thing to say. who the hell isn't biased? Everyone has an agenda. Friends of the earth, the green party, green peace etc have been created in response to people's concerns about the environment. So obviously she is going to marshall evidence to support her cause. Bias is an overused word.

I wonder where some of these people get their degrees from.

Where is yours from? Oh wait..

Hi,

Re: Yet more Green Rubbish (in this case is Re. short for Recycled?

One really does have to wonder what keeps some of these Greeny fools ears apart – could it be CO2 wadding?

I wonder if history will survive the present day up coming catastrophy sufficiently long to record that Al Gore & Paschauri were the greatest con men in history and set out to enrich themselves at the expense of the destruction of civilisation – supported by idiots like Caroline Lucas and her star struck Water Melon Party (All green on the outside, spineless, tastless and wet within increasingly Red to a centre that merely gives you the pip!), Mary Kaldor of The LSE Global Governance scam department, little George Monbiot & his Millions made by others.

Read this drivel from a paid up Green salaried by the Greens & Greenpeace!

I wonder howmany of the widely proclaimed Doctord who promote The Green crooks are in fact relevant or have Doctorates in knitting! I rang dozens during the EU elections and couldn’t locate a single one with a relevant qualification – loads had learned Caroline Lucas’ mantras but facts were a bit beyond them, then again the Lucas woman thinks people who fly on business or holidays should be treated just like those who attack people and stab and kill them!!!

A dishonest corrupt woman who must know just how dishonest all this garbage about CO2 and global warming being man’s fault is – NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE but still she advocates taxing the poor who can not afford it to indulge the Middle Classes and the wealth to build these fatuaous wind mills that create MORE carbon in their manufacture and disposal than they COULD ever save.

Just what has Paschauri done with the $58 Million he has scabbed so far? Gordon Brown has avoided Boom & Bust by introducing Bust & Bankrupt – yet he has just transferred from the exchequer he bankrupted due to HIS economic illiteracy & additional borrowing of £1 Trillion, he has handed over £60,000,000 to the thieves in the EU to squander on the pretext of paying for HIS Governments profligate use of / creation of CO2 – Who cares how much CO2 is produced? Isure don’t as it has absolutely nothing to do with so called global warming!

Throughout the entire record of this planet the CO2 rate has risen as a RESULT OF periods of warming, of which there have been many. See Jim’s excellent compilation somewhere else on this Forum (Try a sort of his postings – it was well worth reading and well informed).

This latest posting he has posted from a magazine is worth reading:

Humans Behind Rising Seas, Study Says

By Stéphan Reebs, Natural History Magazine
posted: 28 February 2010 02:20 pm ET

Since 1900, global sea levels have crept upward about seven inches. Rising temperatures are melting glaciers and ice sheets, as well as warming the oceans directly, which causes them to expand. Various researchers have attributed only a portion of the rise in water level to carbon dioxide (CO2)released by human actions—and blamed the rest on natural factors such as solar activity. The latest study goes much further, faulting people for more than three-quarters of the sea-level change during the past century.

Records of tide height have been kept for centuries at several seaports (Amsterdam since 1700, Liverpool since 1768, Stockholm since 1774, and many other places since 1850). Such long records have enabled Svetlana Jevrejeva, of the British government’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, and two colleagues to statistically model the influence of various factors on sea level during the past three centuries, and to extrapolate the findings over the past millennium.

Sponsored Links How reduce CO2 in cities?Siemens has answers to climate protection in cities. Siemens AG - Sustainable Urban Development Reduce Environment ImpactHelp Combat The Climate Crisis Assess, Reduce and Offset Your CO2 Carbon Balanced by the World Land Trust. Offset your carbon dioxide emissions Science: So What?What's the future of technology? Discover what science's doing today sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/
The team found that up until about 1800, sea levels actually fell owing to volcanic eruptions that periodically injected ash into the atmosphere, veiling the Sun and cooling the Earth. But as the waters rose after 1850, the biggest contributing factor was increasing atmospheric CO2.

Significantly, Jevrejeva’s team calculated that without the ongoing, mitigating effects of volcanic activity since 1880, sea levels would now be about three inches higher than they are.

This research was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The author is clearly an academic just trotting out mantras too stupid to realise they are being used - they talk of climate records back to the late 1700s, no wonder they show they are idiots when compared to the full record available to us.

You can prove anything if you are dishonest enough to only provide data that upholds your chosen scam!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

You know what I cannot belive the drivel YOU are spouting. I could reply with many scientific studies but to be honest it is not worth the effort because people like you will make any exuse not to notice the world around them. Most probably you will come up with a reply to this post along the lines of
"oh well if you cannot get reports it is because they are faked,biased untruthfull blah blah blah"

OK so we don't want to be Chicken Licken about this issue, I get you, but why go so far the other way?
I understand Barry's reasoning, it's biblical that the earth will not be destroyed until after the rapture, so why worry about it - might just as well make millions from what little oil is left and squander it right? http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/a...e1974/wink.gif
The rest of you though, seriously do you guys look for conspiracy anywhere else or is it just this issue? I am yet to hear a scientist deny that climate change is not naturally occuring, the concern is surely the speed this time round? Does it not make sense to be prepared for the worst case scenario whilst hoping that in actuality it won't be as bad?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

The rest of you though, seriously do you guys look for conspiracy anywhere else or is it just this issue? I am yet to hear a scientist deny that climate change is not naturally occuring, the concern is surely the speed this time round? Does it not make sense to be prepared for the worst case scenario whilst hoping that in actuality it won't be as bad?

I think that's the key to it all; acknowledge the fact that although there's a great deal of political interference and fudging of the figures over the whole climate change, yes/no, man-made/natural, issue, the whole environment which we live in has become over-polluted and that there will inevitably be some ramifications of that. Whether they'll be of the kind and size as many have predicted I really don't know, but it seems like common sense to me to prepare for the worst case scenario, then, as Op says, hope it never happens. But above all I think that the government (well, all governments) need to come clean on the whole issue and admit that all their global warming and CO2 policies have been based on the flawed evidence produced by the IPCC. That on its own would go a long way in getting the public to do their bit rather than rather resentfully feel they were being lead along by the nose for false and politically inspired reasons.

Addendum: Just had this article from the Daily Express pointed out to me - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...change-retreat

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

There's also an interesting article in the International Medical Veritas Association website, here - http://imva.info/index.php/2010/02/n...n-climatology/

Well
Let's put it another way.....Whether you believe climate change is happening, whether you believe it isn't man-made, surely making changes to the way we live and bringing good positive changes to society is just common sense regardless of the reason for the prompt. It doesnt matter that the Greens are any other party is involved. But what is important is that we adopt a common sense tactic, oil, gas, coal, uranium are depleting...so it makes sense not to pump or finances into these forms of power.....by creating new industries you will be able to train a whole new workforce, creating jobs rather than making many redundant.....this is just common sense....regardless of your feelings on the climate change issue..

Originally Posted by SCGPMarie

Well
Let's put it another way.....Whether you believe climate change is happening, whether you believe it isn't man-made, surely making changes to the way we live and bringing good positive changes to society is just common sense regardless of the reason for the prompt. It doesnt matter that the Greens are any other party is involved. But what is important is that we adopt a common sense tactic, oil, gas, coal, uranium are depleting...so it makes sense not to pump or finances into these forms of power.....by creating new industries you will be able to train a whole new workforce, creating jobs rather than making many redundant.....this is just common sense....regardless of your feelings on the climate change issue..

I generally agree with you on that, although I am a supporter of more nuclear power rather than less. Alternative energy sources like solar or wind or wave or geothermal have yet to prove that they can cope with even a fraction of the demand, and mini-power stations using fuel cells, which just serve a few dozen or a few hundred properties, are still only on the horizon. We'll still need vast power stations and a national grid system for decades to come.

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

You know what I cannot belive the drivel YOU are spouting. I could reply with many scientific studies but to be honest it is not worth the effort because people like you will make any exuse not to notice the world around them. Most probably you will come up with a reply to this post along the lines of
"oh well if you cannot get reports it is because they are faked,biased untruthfull blah blah blah"

Yawn. If you CAN publish peer reviewed papers that can conclusively prove anthropogenic climate change then I shall hold my hands up, but you know what Cara, man made climate change is like communism...a huge con designed to control the population at large perpetrated by people who simply love the sound of their own bull.

So go one then..publish these mythological papers.

Ok, if global warming is fake. Why have lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 in the Antarctic?

The shore of Deception Island in Antarctica, in 2008. The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study. The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.


Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.
Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).
In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.
More than 190 nations gather in Copenhagen next month to hammer out a global climate deal to curb greenhouse gases and help poor countries cope with its consequences.
University of Texas professor Jianli Chen and colleagues analysed nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction in Antarctica.
Covering the period up January 2009, the data was collected by the twin GRACE satellites, which detect mass flows in the ocean and polar regions by measuring changes in Earth's gravity field.
Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 emphasised that human induced climate change has the potential to trigger large scale changes in Earth systems, that could have severe consequences at a global scale. If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? The U.S. National Research Council issued a report summarised by a group of scientists who state, “…it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious”. In studying icebergs, scientists recognise that the final stages of iceberg break-up imitate the rapid disintegration of ice shelves caused by climate warming. Floating shelves of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula are experiencing temperatures and melt rates that they can no longer withstand. Ice shelves are important because they help control glacier flow; removal of ice shelves causes rapid glacier acceleration and calving. Already we have seen the collapse and break-up of the Wordie and Larsen Ice Shelves.
The collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf was the largest single disintegration event in 30 years of ice shelf monitoring (yellow section on map below). Preliminary studies of sediment cores suggest that it may have been this ice shelf's first collapse in 12,000 years.
A huge section from the Ross Ice Shelf (red coloured portion on map below) called the B15 icberg also broke away. It was the largest single free floating iceberg ever recorded.

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...IceShelves.jpg

Image: Antarctica's major ice shelf areas in Antarctica. Image courtesy of Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

http://www.shackletoncentenary.org/A...%28NASA%29.jpg

Originally Posted by SCGPMarie

Well
But what is important is that we adopt a common sense tactic, oil, gas, coal, uranium are depleting...so it makes sense not to pump or finances into these forms of power....

As a note, apparently the world's know reserves of uranium are increasing, not decreasing. Uranium Supplies: Supply of Uranium

Nuclear power is a viable alternative to carbon fuels for electricity generation if the powers that be would get off their a**** and get to work. In my dealings, in the US with TVA and their nuclear power programs, they have to be the slowest moving organization in the world. I once met with a German nuc engineer who worked for Bechtel. We were in a TVA plant that had been under construction for a good 12 years before construction was stopped at about the 60% mark. I asked him why it takes so long to build a nuc plant in the US. With a look somewhere between a grimace and a frown he stated simply because every time we build a plant tin the US it's like we've never done it before whereas in Europe, they perfect a design and then replicate it. That instance was over 15 years ago and so far TVA have done 3 studies about restarting construction with absolutely no final decision. Madness if you ask me.

Originally Posted by SCGPMarie

Well
Let's put it another way.....Whether you believe climate change is happening, whether you believe it isn't man-made, surely making changes to the way we live and bringing good positive changes to society is just common sense regardless of the reason for the prompt. It doesnt matter that the Greens are any other party is involved. But what is important is that we adopt a common sense tactic, oil, gas, coal, uranium are depleting...so it makes sense not to pump or finances into these forms of power.....by creating new industries you will be able to train a whole new workforce, creating jobs rather than making many redundant.....this is just common sense....regardless of your feelings on the climate change issue..

I think you will see from the post I made in the actual climate change thread that in general I agree with this. We do not use our front rooms as toilets, and we should not dump rubbish and noxious materials into our environment, that is simply common sense. There are aspects of the Kyoto Treaty I full support and would like to see toughened up.

However when it comes to certain things the environmental lobby talk absolute balderdash.

Nuclear Energy: Due to the power demands of modern society we have few choices. Nuclear Fusion will not be there commercially for something like 50 years unless a major break through occurs. As a result we are stuck with Nuclear Fission. Any new reactors should be the modern and efficient late Generation 3 or preferably the up coming Generation IV type, of which there are several approved designs and about 6 undergoing certification for implementation should the design suit a constructor. Currently Nuclear Fission is the ONLY technology we have that can deliver our electrical power requirements without seriously increasing the number of coal, oil and gas fired turbine stations.

Solar Energy: The technology simply is not there on a large commercial scale required to power entire cities or countries. Further the energy used to actually produce photo-voltaic cells outstrips the energy produced by a given cell over the course of its operational life span. There are several types of technology that utilise solar energy directly. For small scale this is a viable was forward in some parts of the world, but only if the devices used for producing power are attached to existing buildings. The moment they are stand alone then the benefits are negated by the loss of radiation heating the surface of the globe. On a small scale this is negligible, but on the scales envisaged by some this would become a serious concern.

Wind Turbines: On a small scale this is viable. But if we started to produce significant quantities of energy from this for whole cities or even nations, which is feasible, then we have a serious problem. The most efficient wind turbines are 40% efficient, that means only 40% of the energy they glean from the atmosphere is converted to electrical power. This is due to a range of factors such as mechanical/magnetic and electrical losses in the equipment. For every 1MW of energy needed, you would have to "steal" more than 2.2MW from the energy in the atmosphere. This energy is not FREE as many purport, but part of the finely balances system that makes our weather patterns. To start interfering with this is reckless when we know so little about how it works.

Wave Generation: This is commercially unproven technology, though it has been demonstrated to work at up to 45% efficiency, comparable to wind turbines. However a major draw back of this technology is that it takes up and thus closes off, large swathes of seas and oceans, takes energy from the Ocean currents and would drastically alter the behaviour of animals in the region that live in and off the sea. We can only speculate what the effect would be to alter sea and ocean current paths as we have no experience of this.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Ok, if global warming is fake. Why have lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 in the Antarctic?

Kiwi, no-one has said that the warming of the planet since 1850 is fake, what we are saying is that the evidence for it weighs against it being anthropogenic (man-made). There is clear evidence that shows that the warming over the last 150 years is well within the normal ranges that have occurred in the past when Man could simply not have been responsible. There is clear evidence that shows that there have been times in Earth's history where CO² levels have been up to 12 times higher than today, yet there was an ice age on one occasion, the other the temperatures were comparable to today. When the planet's Mean Global Temperature is tracked back using proven techniques for millions of years it can clearly be shown that the current global mean temperature of around 16.7°C is actually in the middle of a range and that generally the MGT of the planet would seem to be in the 19.2°C range. However in the last 2.5 million years this has dropped to around the levels we see today.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Ok, if global warming is fake. Why have lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 in the Antarctic?
http://www.shackletoncentenary.org/A...%28NASA%29.jpg

Hi,

does that provably constitute a net gain or a net loss relative to new ice forming during the 4 years?

IF the planet continues to rise in temperature since in fact it has fallen in temperature every year for 11 years what do YOU blame for the rise in temperature as it would seem we have some 29 ice ages in the fossil record which means 29 periods of warming.

The one consistent factor would seem to be that CO2 rises AFTER the warming and clearly thus has nothing to do with the cause.

That some 2,500 so called scientists had their names put to the utterly unreliable IPCC report vebded for personal gain by Al Gore and Paschauri yet many demanded their names be removed and yet more had their names appended having written papers and commentaries showing it was crass, amateur and dishonest.

Of course the Oregon Petition has over 30,000 degreed scientists who have VOLUNTARILY made the effort to denounce the anthropogenic causes of such global warming as is spuriously claimed of those 9,000 have doctorates!!

What is served by this pack of lies being peddled by crooks?

Paschauri would seem to have managed to 'boost' some $58 Million from EUrope alone - no wonder with his close association with Tatta his TERI institute is blooming and his multi million home in New Deli stands out for its oppulence - the man is a crook just like Al Gore, liars and cheats with a modern snake oil.

Let us assume that ALL the ice in Antarctica melted well what might you be planning to do to alter the output of the sun?

At least we can relly on no shortage of oil - EVER - just think if ALL the ice melted in just one century we would have that huge land mass that would become inhabitable and there is bound to be more oil - though whether the volcanoes that are running magma under the ice and melting it MIGHT become more active and fracture the continent is uncertain.

Interesting living on a volatile rock in the beam zone of a star isn't it - no wonder we have such a febrile brain it thinks in terms of the loss of ice in 4 years yet overlooks the recent ice ages and the fact that where I live in Monmouthshire was under ONE MILE of ice not so long ago and one of the greatest sources of fossilised buffallo, mamouth, rhino and the like is on the floor of the north sea before it flooded!

We do desperately need a huge number of nuclear power stations as although there is a super abundance of oil and coal and we haven't even tried tapping the methane exuding from the melting perma frost peate in Siberia - handling these fuels is both grubby, arduous and costly.

Sadly we will in fact start experiencing involuntary power outs due to system failure from 2012 which is inevitable with all this global warming in deep and crisp and even layers another cold winter with failing power is likely to lead to 10s of 1,000s of deaths. That due to political incompetence there is no way we can bring the essential power stations on stream even if we started NOW withing 10 years is a measure of the idiocy of our vile and venal politicians - can YOU see ANY forward planning from these odious idiots?

Apres nous la deluge!

Once the ice melts perhaps we could move to Antarctica and make party politicians, the Fabians, Rowntree trust, jingo socialism, communism, Common Purpose and the rest of the parasites a capital crime - My idea of capitalism!!!

The Chinese curse was always 'may you live in interesting times' I would contend we should be more scared now with the likes of the communist Barrosso and his gang of scheisters in charge than our ancestors facing Alexander the Dwarf, Timor The Lame, The Khans or even Boudicca's useless rabble! The mess our politicians have created will be more consequential and more devastating than was The Black Death and it is already knocking at the door - watch Greece and the restof the PIIGS collapse - each one down is a step closer to the collapse of our bond market - wothless paper!

I understand the 2 i/c at the Fed will be axed within the next couple of days - Illinois is now paying State employees in tradable promissory notes - 87,000 homes were repod. last month in America property prices have fallen 16.1/2% this year, bonds have doubled in cost, they expect 3.4Million homes to be repod in the next 12 month and property is changing hands in Detroit for $1.00 + the legal costs.

World currency is now a giant Ponzi scheme with liberal printing of currencies under dishonest scam names like 'quantitive easing', what idiot dreamed that name up, it is working better than a laxative on those who understand!

We have Hughes acting as lawyer to TRY to negotiate a value, some value, any value in the £2 Trillion of worthless paper issued from Washington under the CMKX Bond Issue - & a Mexican atand off of approaching 200 ships of world navies waiting for the first person to blink off of the straits at the gulf with the Russian fleet and the Iranian fleet all within strike of the US fleet, French and British naval vessels and the assorted allies of each side.

& your worried about a few ice cubes in Antarctica - get real!

Which child, with a lack of comprehension will point out 'The Emperor Has No Clothes On?' or did I just!

Have a nice day!
Greg L-W.

IF the Global Mean Temperature reaches 21°C then the Polar Summer Temp is estimated to be averaged at 18°C and the minimum winter -25°C. The amount of land inundated by the predicted rise in sea level is between 12.7 million²km and 15.9 million²km. This is a vast area that is about the size or slightly larger than the Antarctic landmass.

HOWEVER. When you add up all the land that would lose the Ice cover and loose the perma-frost that currently makes it all but uninhabitable. This includes Antarctica, Northern Russia/Siberia, Greenland, a massive portion of Canada as well as most of Alaska and quite a chunk in Northern Europe (Scandinavia), based on the IPCC's own Data and that of climate change research, the amount of land LIBERATED form the ice is estimated to be between 20.1 million²km and 31.6 million²km.

So what happens is we get more land after the b0ill thaw than before it, even taking into account the rise in the global ocean level....It's amazing how they don't publicise that little fact isn't it.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

IF the Global Mean Temperature reaches 21°C then the Polar Summer Temp is estimated to be 18°C and the minimum winter -25°C. The amount of land inundated by the predicted rise in sea level is between 12.7 million²km and 15.9 million²km. This is a vast area that is about the size or slightly larger than the Antarctic landmass.

HOWEVER. When you add up all the land that would lose the Ice cover and loose the perma-frost that currently makes it all but uninhabitable. This includes Antarctica, Northern Russia/Siberia, Greenland, a massive portion of Canada as well as most of Alaska and quite a chunk in Northern Europe (Scandinavia), based on the IPCC's own Data and that of climate change research, the amount of land LIBERATED form the ice is estimated to be between 20.1 million²km and 31.6 million²km.

So what happens is we get more land after the b0ill thaw than before it, even taking into account the rise in the global ocean level....It's amazing how they don't publicise that little fact isn't it.

Oooh quick someone buy me a pole and a flag, the Independent Democratic Republic of Opinionated looks more feasible! Or am I going to find that America got there first?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Oooh quick someone buy me a pole and a flag, the Independent Democratic Republic of Opinionated looks more feasible! Or am I going to find that America got there first?

So we're going to be seeing the Independent Democratic Republic of Opinionated listed here - List of micronations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - some time in the future are we? Can I please put in an advance application for citizenship

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Oooh quick someone buy me a pole and a flag, the Independent Democratic Republic of Opinionated looks more feasible! Or am I going to find that America got there first?

Can I just say at this point that I think we should have a written constitution and that all people are equal until proven that they are not opinionated enough, and everyone MUST by law have an opinion on everything..and our national anthem should be a 5 minute raspberry...

Originally Posted by Midas

So we're going to be seeing the Independent Democratic Republic of Opinionated listed here - List of micronations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - some time in the future are we? Can I please put in an advance application for citizenship

A very comprehensive list, they even have Kingdom of Lovely, which was started by the BBC.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Can I just say at this point that I think we should have a written constitution and that all people are equal until proven that they are not opinionated enough, and everyone MUST by law have an opinion on everything..and our national anthem should be a 5 minute raspberry...

Quite

But getting back to the point, whilst you're quite correct in pointing out that more land could, in theory, be made habitable by rising sea levels occasioned by global warming than is lost for the same reason, the major problem is that the vast majority of this land - Antarctica excepted - is already owned by Canada and Russia. Some of the most highly populated regions on the planet are coastal or delta-based, placed like Bangladesh to name but one, and with the best will in the world, land availability or not, I can't see other countries having an open arms policy to tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants who, by and large, would be economically unproductive to them.