Environmental president of Maldives forced out of office in what was described as a "coup d'e tat"

This does not bode well for the stability of this nation. However, President Nasheed resigned to spare more bloodshed. It is a sad end considering all the country went through to see him elected. That is why I question whether there was more to this than what we are being told about pressure being brought down on him.

"...continuing in office would result in his having to use force against the people."

This is what struck me most. He is a good man.
He is a 99%er!

That shows he truly loves and serves his people .

I believe so. And he wants to save his nation if at all possible from the waves growing higher around it. There are those in this world who find that to be a threat.

Yeah, I just think the article phrases everything very strangely. Are the protesters for the dictator more prevalent that those who faught for democracy and a vote? Why would the protesters that ousted the dictator suddenly give up and let the old party regain control?

The article gives me the impression that it may have something to do with muslim extremism, that people really liked the dictator, or that nobody really know what happened or why he is leaving. The democratic president that is being ousted is quoted saying things that are contradictory (i.e. "I don't wan't bloodshed, but that is the only option left so I will resign"). The article seems to swing back and forth in portraying him as Nelson Mandela in some lines and Charles Manson in others. There must be more to the story and it seems as though the author of this article doesn't want to figure it out...

And someone who has been observing sea levels there for over forty years should be discounted because his real-world results differ from the extremists' predictions.

And how's this for stupidity, who in their right mind would build eleven airports on a sinking island? And sorry, but your excuse, "they rely on tourism" is hilarious and remarkably naive, to say the least.

An interesting paper concluded, "“In the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea level occurred some 30 years ago. The origin of this sea level fall is likely to be an increased evaporation over the central Indian Ocean linked to an intensification of the NE-monsoon.
Furthermore, there seems no longer to be any reasons to condemn the Maldives to become flooded in the near future.
Besides, at about 1000–800 BP, the people of the Maldives survived a higher sea level by about 50–60 cm.” "

“New Perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Mörner N.-A.; Tooley M., Possnert, G.

He was their first democratically elected president. It's really an outrage. Now, it may all be lost. I would hope this doesn't silence his voice on climate change.

It is a bummer... all those poor people, their islands sinking due to CO2, or maybe not.
You see, it seems this 'leader' has been lying to people in order to wrangle money out of easily-led governments.
The Maldives aren't sinking.

"Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of INQUA, the International Commission on Sea Level Change, has studied real-world sea levels for nearly 40 years. Rather than relying mostly on computer models, as most climate scientists do, Dr. Morner has concentrated on using satellites, photographs and detailed measurement records to determine whether the oceans are rising, falling or remaining pretty much the same.

“The sea is not rising,” he has told anyone who will listen. ”It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” What’s more, if it rises in the 21st Century, it will be by ”not more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm.” That’s pretty much the same prediction as that derived by the other real-world measurers, Houston and Dean."

Now, you can read all the propaganda you like, most of which relies on models and predictions to come to some conclusion, but you cannot beat real-world observation and data.

Something doesn't seem quite right when the outgoing president tells us his islands are sinking, yet eleven new airports are being built on the islands.
And if eleven new airports don't convince you that the islands are pretty stable, how about a nice sea-front property: "The sublease is registered with the Maldivian Government and is fully transferable, with no restrictions. It currently stands at 33 years and any future head lease extensions will automatically be passed on to the villa owner."
http://www.ilre.com/maldives-luxury-real-estate.html

Hold on... 33 years? Surely the Maldives will be well under water by then? Sure!
Some people are so easily sucked in.

To be this persistant in your pursuit against climate change you are either unstable, or being paid... so which is it? You have been targeting this topic and Jan here in particularly for a while now, how do you explain this? Can you explain?

Absolutely, though I doubt you'll have the intelligence to understand.
You see, I was always under the impression that this was an open forum that invited discussion and debate. Now, I realize I was wrong to think that. It seems this is a place where radical extremists who are stuck in the past and adhere only to one ideal and thought-pattern hang out for some sort of mutual support.
Unfortunately I don't quite agree with their religious belief that the world is in a death-spiral and it's all man's fault, and that's why I present data and information that counters the alarmist views proffered here.

In the case of this post, we have been led to believe that the Maldives were under threat of rising seas due to man's CO2 emissions causing global warming. As we can clearly see, any 'global warming' ended fifteen years ago, even the Met Office has had to concede that. CO2 seems to be doing a pretty bad job of keeping the planet toasty at the moment. Not only is there severe cold throughout Europe, most of the planet is undergoing lower than average temperatures. In fact the global temperature anomaly as measured by satellites is currently negative, and has been way below the peak of +0.7C that we saw in 1998.
But, getting back to the reason why I wrote my latest comment, and I'll keep it really simple for you.
There is currently a plan to build eleven airports on the Maldives. Why if they are sinking?
There are numerous sea-front properties with 33 year leases. 33 years, again, why if the islands are in such imminent danger?
Scientists who have actually been observing sea levels in that area (that means looking and measuring real stuff, not just tweaking computer models) have found that ”It [sea level] hasn’t risen in 50 years.”
Now come on, even you, surely, can see that some things just don't add up.

Now, as I stated earlier, this is obviously a forum for alarmist-extremists who cling together for mutual support, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their religion is little more than a laughable failure. So I have to ask at this point, why would you want to hang out and be associated with people like this, could it be true that it is you, and not me, is the one who is either unstable, or being paid?
And please feel free to point out when I have ever said that the climate does not change. The climate has always changed and always will.

Yep, open to debate we are, you however haven't really debated much that I have seen... Of all the various threads I have wandered through I only seem to recall seeing your commenets in threads that can even vaguely be related to climate change and you rant and persist and insist and railroad and refuse to consider... and yet you make no noticable comments anywhere else that I have encountered... so to me and many like me you are simply serving an agenda, again either a symptom of instabilty or a paycheck.

--EDIT-- Oh yes, please point out where the alarmist and extremist comment was in this thread before your rant?
Remann's "Well, the Maldives will soon be under water anyway,.....but its still a bummer." Is soooo much more a verbal shoulder shrug then anything alarmist or extremist... he said "bummer" for crying out loud.

For a start your accusations are childish and show your lack of credibility and substance.
You are correct, I only comment on posts relating to climate or weather, and that's because it is one subject in which I have over half a century of interest and experience.
I rarely see anything else on Current that interests me or that I have enough understanding to post comments on. That's why I stick to a topic I know about, unlike most people here!

How are my accusations childish or lack credibility when you openly admit that my accusations are accurate in that you post mainly to a single topic?! Now my assertions that this is a symptom of one of two causes no student of human behavior would disagree with me.

Your accusation, "...again either a symptom of instabilty or a paycheck."
Hardly an intelligent response, is it?

"Now my assertions that this is a symptom of one of two causes no student of human behavior would disagree with me."
And now anyone who holds a different viewpoint has 'symptoms' of something you won't specify?

My response to Remanns' comment doesn't accuse anyone of being extremist, if you read it you'll see it merely shows a few facts worth considering before falling for the claim that the islands are about to be swamped by global warming induced sea level rises.

The extremism and alarmism comes from the claims that every weather event is either caused by an elevated level of CO2 concentrations, or made worse because of an elevated level of CO2 concentrations.

Just your typical RW evolution hating Gore hating flake.

Thanks Coolplanet. While we all know that sea levels are rising in many places, we have to keep in mind that this began thousands of years ago, not at the date of your chart, and therefore cannot be blamed on the slight warming we saw last century.

Bwahahaha, ok thats hilarious. Combine that statement with what you have previously written it is now obvious you are full of it. Please turn around and take your agendas with you.

Oh dear. You've just shown you have nothing of substance to offer, and to begin a comment with "Bwahahaha" shows your immaturity.
Now, if you had replied with data and real-word evidence disproving what I had written maybe I might have taken you seriously... but I somehow doubt it.

Thanks. Just one paper amongst many and all with varying results, and this one with data from North Carolina was not indicative of global sea level rises - how could it be, North Carolina is not the world!
However it confirms what I stated earlier, that sea level rises began thousands of years ago, long before man could have been responsible.

Notice the line, "Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium."
Computer models at play again! But read on.

"sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium." So the assertion is that sea levels rise in line with global temperatures. Now think about this, "Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y..."
So you now have no choice but to believe that global temperatures rose for 400 y after 950 AD. But aren't we supposed to believe that temperatures were stable until man began adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
Did something else other than warming cause sea level rises for 400 years after AD950? Or was last century's warm period as natural as the warm period that occurred after 950?
And if there was a warm period causing sea levels to rise after 950, how does that correlate with the Medieval Warm Period (950 - 1250) and the fact that people say it didn't exist or wasn't global?

"sea level rises began thousands of years ago, long before man could have been responsible."

Actually humans have been clearcutting forests to plant crops for many thousands of years and have been changing the climate in the process. Cultivating rice generates huge amounts of methane, as does keeping livestock. Burning chaff in the fall produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide and soot. Deforestation, soil erosion, desertification and overopulation has been warming our world for millennia. (See: "Plows, Plagues & Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" by Professor William F. Ruddiman, Princeton 2005)

Man can play a part in local changes in weather patterns, but to assert that man has been changing the climate for millions of years is sheer nonsense.
Your problem now is you have to accept that at some point the climate was acceptable and correct. Your only option is to look at a time before man walked the earth as that, according to your theory, is the only time the climate could be considered natural.

It wont. +^d

"... but to assert that man has been changing the climate for millions of years is sheer nonsense."

There you go again with your lies.
I said "thousands" not "millions" of years.