The idea that the oceans may rise any civilization-threatening amount in the next century is laughable. If they had said 10,000 years... I might have been interested enough to look into it. Consider the surface temperature in Antarctica year-round and compare that to the melting point of H2O... The temps are going to have to raise a HECKOFALOT to get anywhere close to -32 F.

Not in the slightest. I didn't say there wouldn't have been ice (or won't be in the future) at the south pole... I said there wouldn't have been (and won't be at some point in the future) on the continent of Antarctica... as plate tectonics shoved the plate toward... and eventually will shove it away from the south pole. The water evaporating from the oceans over the eons... and precipitating it on land above sea-level at the pole -as ice- slowly drew the ocean levels down by some amount. This process will inexorably reverse. Any ice that may have existed at the south pole before Antarctica drifted there would have no effect on ocean levels... much like the north sea presently.

I've read about some scientific theories that postulate a trigger for planetary ice-ages is, in fact, a continent drifting across one of the poles... creating a run-away effect of increasing the albedo of the planet. One possible consequence of these theories is that we are currently smack in the middle of one of these ice-age phases - and that the "normal" state of the globe is, in fact, very little or NO ice... anywhere on the entire planet... with possibly a few seasonal exceptions in extreme locations.

The point is, the Earth will do what the Earth will do - and there is nothing we can do to stop it or change it. As any kind of Earth-science should teach us - change is the only constant in this world... Look at the fossil record! How many thousands of species lived and passed away? I live a thousand miles from the nearest ocean - yet there are fossils of sea-creatures here! Things change. And the factors that govern our climate are HUGELY more complex than than our politicians and their useful idiots are prepared to accept. Yes, we humans could wipe ourselves out someday - but its not going to happen by using the natural resources given unto us by mother nature herself to survive.

Your argument is amusing considering it is generally (historically) GOVERNMENTS that 'disrupt our lives' much more so in the manner you describe.

Nobody seems to stop and consider: According to plate tectonics, Antarctica wasn't always at the south pole... presumably, that ice hasn't _always_ been there. Where did it come from? The ocean, duh! In other words... All this ice was previously in the ocean to begin with... The Earth is just slowly cycling back to a state where we've been before. With continued plate tectonic activity the Antarctic continent will (eventually) move away from the south pole again anyway... and the ice will surely melt. What will we do to stem THAT tide? (if you'll pardon the pun) It's just always seemed absurd to me that people display a significant amount of panic over something that is GOING to happen... on its own... whether we like it or not. So what if we are or aren't accelerating it? Even if every ice crystal on Antarctica melts on significantly less than geologic time-scales... it's still only going to happen on a time-scale in which entire civilizations rise and fall. Knowing that the Earth has experienced warm periods and ice ages and at the same time exclaiming that the ocean level today is exactly what it should always be is the epitome of arrogance. Don't be arrogant.

Venice, Italy has been inhabited for well over a thousand years... slowly sinking into the sea... and people still live there. Rest assured, the future inhabitants of the shoreline (where ever it may be) will likely be toiling away, trying to make a living, much as we are today - and have been for thousands of years. Don't panic.

Huh? First of all - define 'wealth' - then define what it means to: "hoard wealth"... and if you can pull that off then explain to me why taxing ONLY somebody's 'wealth' would eliminate the incentive to hoard it. I don't think you've thought this through.

Cap somebody's worth at $500 million? Judging from your user ID - and barring any other weirdness - I'd guess you are likely at least in the general neighborhood of my age and, presuming you are serious, find it a bit shocking that you would express such sentiments as a naive 12-year-old. I realize this is just /. and all... where anybody can just spout off about anything... but do you have the slightest clue of the magnitude of actually implementing anything like what you just said? I'd normally just ignore such a comment - but these days I am increasingly concerned that you - and many others like you - truly believe such things and would actually like to see them implemented. Please tell me you're joking.

Seriously?... Forbes throws up a headline like that and if you RTFA it's all about a freaking municipal water tower... only a single throw-away line about the tower providing water to a nearby drilling operation. That's quite a stretch... What a troll!

Why is it any of my business what corporation X pays their executives - save that I am a stock-holder of that company.

Well, I agree that the 1st amendment is not at issue here... but could somebody please explain to me specifically which article or amendment to the constitution grants the U.S. Federal government authority to ban voice telephone calls on a private flight? Yes, I imagine people squawking on their mobile phones the whole flight would be annoying... and not a desirable thing. But I don't see a "Congress shall have the authority to regulate transportation of persons and their in-transit communication methods" clause in the constitution. Is the concept of enumerated powers finally so utterly and completely lost?

Srsly?... Global bug bounty? IMDB

I remember thinking the very same thing while reading this guy's first opinion piece on the subject. I mean.. seriously. I'm all about people being able to freely express their opinions, but history didn't begin the day you were born, dude. It's strikes me as follows:

"ZOMFG! I totally just found this thing called... the 5th amendment, or something... and it... like... doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because it says... like... bad people don't have to tell anybody that they did something bad, you know? And it's... like... a law and stuff. So I think we ought to change it."

If this kind of tripe passes for intelligent debate these days we're in trouble.

Prat, eh? I presume you're a Brit...
I shall forgive your apparent ignorance of American politics - or perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm a conservative in the context of American politics.
There are differences - some subtle, some significant - between the meaning of liberal and conservative in American vs. British politics.

I define 'big government' by the scope and breadth of its power over its governed. A government so powerful it can record virtually ALL of its citizen's electronic communications - and even decode supposedly private communications - is decidedly 'BIG'. If you disagree with this, fine... but you and I have nothing to discuss. It's not a meaningless phrase, however...

Liberal political ideology leads directly to government having these kinds of unchecked powers - that are sometimes secret and shrouded in mystery... Powers that will eventually be abused - no matter how good the intentions were at the start. Political leaders are not angels - they are humans who, like everybody else, are fallible, imperfect, greedy and power-hungry to one extent or another. Conservatism seeks to limit the scope and power of a centralized government - and guard against too few people gathering too much power unto themselves.

They weren't spying on the entire American population's communications the last time conservatives held any significant political power either.

Um.. huh? You just contradicted yourself. Do you not realize that 'liberal' and 'conservative' - in the political sense, in the U.S. - are words used to describe one's political philosophy on how much power government should have?

You fail at reading comprehension. Nowhere in my comment did I say that.