Oh dear Peter,

I've just discovered your post.

It is a direct cut and paste from a previous one in another thread. I think you might be just a clickbait whore.

I had been looking forward to an enlivening exchange however I usually find the cut and pasters are not that bright.

Pity.

Peter. An excellent post and, like the author of this piece, most comprehensive. It is unfortunate that, despite presenting accurate relevant information repeatedly (clickbaiting?), Sometime it takes repeated presentation to get through to the science and evidence deniers. As opposed to name calling, perhaps the content of the links you refer to could be disputed with alternative evidence. Slug on sir.

Dear Prompete,

I'm assuming your post was directed at me, if it wasn't then please forgive me.

The tone I adopted was reflective of Peter Lang's dismissiveness of AGW proponents. But if you are keen to have a discussion on the merits of his post here minus the sniping then I am more than happy to oblige.

Perhaps we could begin by you letting us know what you consider to be the best example of “accurate relevant information” contained within his post. I will undertake to give a full and frank appraisal of it.

Oh dear SteeleRedux

I hope you're not calling me a whore. Hopefully (from my point of view) you're referring to another Peter, whose reply I found very interesting, and who did put his name to his reply.

Dear Peter McCoy,

My apologies if you thought my post was directed at you, it was not. As yet I have not had cause to think you are going to take a belligerent and dismissive tone toward those who accept the science of AGW.

I asked this of another gentleman on another thread and repeat it here. You say you found Peter Lang's post interesting, I'm wondering if you could enlighten us on what part you found the most engaging? I would be more than happy to address it in a fulsome manner.

In the meanwhile I acknowledge it has been rather remiss and even rude of me not to have cast a critical eye over your article. Forgive me also for seeking out any statistics regarding the impacts of climate change as they are pertinent to the issue even if your piece suggests they are of limited concern.

The only figures you seem to have supplied addressing sea levels was the following;

“The Australian Bureau of Meteorology's Sea Level & Climate Monitoring Project found that between 1992 and 2012 the mean sea level at Tarawa varied between about 1570mm and 1680mm”

The figures for Tarawa can be found here;
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70060/IDO70060SLD.shtml

My question for you is why did you only include the data up to 2012 when a complete and up to date data set was readily available? It shows that the mean monthly sea level in fact ranged from 1.37 mts to 1.838 mts. The highest reading was recorded in May this year.

Why have you used the term “varied”? Taking the decade figures the average mean sea level during the 1990s was 1.613 mtrs, during the 2000's it was 1.669 mtrs and thus far in the 2010s the figure has again risen to 1.695 mtrs.

This year thus far the figure is 1.761 mtrs.

On the surface you appeared at pains to want to downplay the issue of rising sea levels, but perhaps there is another explanation for your phrasing and misquoting figures.

I'm interested to hear it.

The relevant issue is not whether sea levels are rising. The point is that these islands are living organisms, they tend to adjust to the sea level. The fresh water lens floats, the sea level is largely irrelevant. The real damage to both science and the population of islands like Kiribati is done by those who use observations of selected phenomena e.g. sea levels, to avoid addressing the real issues - in this case being that the real danger to Kiribati is the politics of climate change, not the fact of climate change.