And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.

You're wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html

Hottest summer where? One hot summer does not climate make. And here's the citation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html

I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game. Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.

Damn it, missed it by that much! +1

Now all we need is a ring of exotic matter and this could be real! But seriously, if this is possible - I for one am very excited by the concept.

I can't speak for Russia or Europe, but Australia is definitely not in a drought and hasn't been for at least the last 2 years. In fact at the moment we are in the middle of a La Nina event, with more flooding than anything else. Most of our dams are either at 100% capacity, or close to that as well - they'd in fact all be at 100% if it wasn't for "environmental flows".

There's an easy way that they could cajole most people into being tracked, and that's to give them "points" which they can spend on good & services depending on the time spent in the shopping centre, etc. That way, both parties get what they want and Big Brother is happy again as Joe Consumer continues on in blissful ignorance.

I wasn't meaning to imply that all of New Orleans was flooded or built below sea level. I just get annoyed at people who make ridiculous claims like the AC I was originally responding. Thank you for the correction BTW.

Wow, you are misinformed a great deal. Firstly, the water wasn't 100m (300ft) high even in New Orleans. Secondly, New Orleans sits below the water level, which is why they have levees in the first place. They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.

Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.

Wow, exaggerate much?

Wow, get angry much WindBourne?

Let me answer some of the angry points you made, ok?

And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.

Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.

Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.

There's hardly anything unknown to fear here. The risks are entirely known, although granted, it is possible that there may be some unexpected issues that crop up when we finally do get to mars that the boffins on Earth hadn't foreseen. And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?

Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.

WTF? Now you're just ranting off at a tangent. How about, personally I am just tired of people responding to a post in a knee-jerk manner and making all sorts of assumptions based on zero factual evidence.

'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.