Should developed countries help rebuild developing countries or just declare everybody a refugee and invite them to live in the developed countries? When a cyclone hits Florida or Darwin, or horrible floods hit England or winter storms freeze Russia do the people there become refugees. If a 7.0 earthquake hits Japan, the community starts to rebuild the next day.

Isn't it better to help the people in developing countries build a society that can stand up to natural disasters, rather than giving up and declaring everybody refugees.

Tanveer says, in paragraph two, "imagined by some from the effects of global warming" but it probably should be either "effects of imagined global warming" or "imagined effects from global warming".

Eustacy or isostacy are the primary cause of changes in RELATIVE level between land and sea-level. Bangladesh sits on a tectonic plate which is falling on one side and rising on another. Proper surveys of the Maldives showed them rising, not falling, in the last few years. The state of Pacific islands is mixed with some apparently rising slightly but others falling slightly, albeit the data is for a period of insufficient length to be certain of trends.

Independent scientists say that according to the Stefan-Bolzmann formula the only certain warming effect of carbon dioxide amounts to 0.7C degrees if carbon dioxide levels are DOUBLED (and we are long way short of that). There may be feedback affects of other climate elements but scientists are still struggling to understand and quantitfy these possible feedbacks.

In short this article was a beat-up about very little.

cheers

Snowman