Producer, I spent quite a bit of time on pacific islands, in the 70s.

In fact I built small jetties on a number of them.

On a recent Google earth trip around some of those islands, I found a number of those jetties some distance inland from the sea, or so silted up with growth of the islands around them, that some were extended, & some replaced.

Do try to get some facts in your posts.

Perhaps if you read something of the nature of atolls it would be a start, then be careful of who you pay attention to. You could end up like 579, believing everything some lefty government lacy tells you.

Coastal areas will likely experience major changes in sea levels this century due to climate change. The shifts, however, will be anything but uniform. NASA research shows that some coasts are experiencing sea level rise significantly faster than the global average of 3.27 millimeters (about 1/8 of an inch) per year, while other areas are experiencing slower rates of rise and even falling sea levels. "It would be nice if we could say we can predict exactly how a given island or island chain will react to rising sea levels or some other environmental change, but we're simply not there yet for most islands, especially for many tropical islands where research dollars are scarce. We're still a long way from being able to accurately model how an individual island will change as a result of climate change or even simple development pressure," said Stutz

I generally do not respond to comments as they generally address part of a comment and ignore the context. It’s raining so there’s little I can do!

Prompete - Visit Saibai that’s close and you don’t need a passport!

Hasbeen - Granted not all Pacific Islands are being affected negatively too sea level rise due to global warming. Yes some of them are actually growing, so I hope there wasn’t an extended warranty on those jetties. This however is of little comfort to the ones that are being affected.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-03/king-tide-on-saibai---background-briefing/3866608

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sinking-pacific-island-kiribati-considers-moving-to-a-manmade-alternative-2350964.html

http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/environment/climate-change/pacific-island-sinking-20091119-iom7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1283669/Low-lying-Pacific-islands-growing-sinking-sea-levels-rise.html

It beats me why the author treats Western energy consumption as a given. Sure coal is important to the millions who are energy poor and it should be rationed out to them, but this doesn't alter the fact that the west is in a state of energy glut and can cut down on consumption massively. Let's produce as much coal as we need to cover the transition period to clean energy--which must involve cuts in consumption--and essential services to the impoverished the author is so concerned about.

The truth is it's all about money.

Let's not be hypocrites, Mr Sporton, and pretend this is about efficiencies; it's about money.

Hyperbole about storing nuclear waste in Canberra gets us further from a sensible discussion about the merits or otherwise of nuclear energy.

There's a saying "Experience is a hard teacher, you get the test before the lesson". We have learned enough about nuclear energy, the hard way, to make more of a success of it in the future. Already we are at the point that a miniscule number people have been harmed by it compared with the burning coal and hydrocarbons. Just as we have gradually learned to burn better (less particulates, sulfur dioxide, clean air acts) so it is with nuclear energy. India's thorium stations will lead the way in even safer generation and waste storage.

Without nuclear energy (at least until thorium runs out) the world will not have the time to develop the massive scale alternatives to burning carbon and hydrocarbons needed to survive their depletion and to stop warming. This is more than just adding a few solar panels to our home and feeling good about ourselves. Base-load power is a very serious matter. Without it we will have a different catastrophe to the environmental one we are trying to avoid, but a catastrophe nonetheless.

Yes, there have been nuclear accidents and disasters but we must forge on towards harnessing nuclear power with all the information, knowledge and wisdom we can. There really is no alternative unless fusion experiments bear fruit well ahead of our hopes.

Luciferas good point, clearly written, makes a lot of sense to me.

Bugsy, my apologies for the confusion. I think the point I am trying to make is that comments such as those submitted by Producer, wherein he states that;

"Those individuals who think climate change is crap should spend time on their own on the numerous Pacific islands that are clearly sinking."?

is a comment that over simplifies the debate and attributes that 'sinking' to what? Unstable geology? Erosion? Anthropogenic CO2, rising sea levels? Some satellite studies indicate that some islands are clearly not sinking, but actually growing.
It has been my reading that sea levels have been rising on average 1mm per year since the little ice age 2000 years ago...result, 200mm. It has been reported that Vanuatu has is being eaten away by rising sea levels, but the tide gauges show no such rise. Tuvalu islanders have been requesting relocation funds from western nations because island waters are salt contaminated from encroaching sea waters. In fact, it was found that a Japanese pineapple grower had extracted so much ground water that existing sea water had seeped in to fill the gap (this fact was not reported... The news had moved on!) In 2001 it was reported (CNN) that in 10 years time most of the 9 Attols would be submerged due to AGW and rising sea levels. Here we are 10 years later, and no attol submerged and several grown by 10 to 30%..
Nils-Axel Morner, an IPPC contributing author measured sea levels in the Maldives in the 1970's and found that they fell 20 cm, confirmed by changing topography noted by local fishermen. Since that time, he has continued his monitoring and recorded no change in the 39 years since then.
The point I make is that the complexities of the sea level issue in the pacific island region is incredibly complex and a vast array of factors influence the dynamics of pacific island topography.
I can only reiterate HASBEEN's plea to "do try to get some facts into your posts"