Dear Peter McCoy,

It appears these are the three takeaway messages from your last post.

1. You do not have an explanation for your 'phrasing and misquoting' of mean sea level figures.
2. You dismiss the concerns of sea level rises because of a belief the islands will 'rise above' them. Hopefully you understand why those living there might not share your optimism given the rate of increase.
3. You found nothing in Peter Lang's post worthy of highlighting.

Well I suppose I'm happy to leave it there.

Thanks Peter McCloy for a very sound article. Population growth does indeed seem to be at the heart of the problem though sea-level rise is certainly an existential threat that cannot be dismissed. If Australia is giving so much aid, it should insist it goes into reproductive health with free contraception an integral part of it and any policies for gender equality and education of women must be supported. Stabilisation of populatioin numbers has to be the number one priority.

popnperish,

You say:

"sea-level rise is certainly an existential threat."

What do you mean by that statement? Can you quantify the risk of sea-levle ris? Risk means consequence times probability. It is normally givin in terms of the expected monetary value of the risk. Consequences is normally given as the cost if the event or condition occurs, bu can also be given As fatalities or serious health consequences per defined population, period,, or other definitions). The expected monetary value should be normalised, e.g. as % of GDP or some such measure.

This paper estimates that the cumulative net cost for the whole world of a rise in sea level by 2100, would be:
0.5 m rise = $0.2 trillion
1 m rise = $1 trillion
"Economic impact of substantyial sea level rise" http://www.springerlink.com/content/851112j434t26502/fulltext.pdf
These costs are insignificant compared with cumulative global GDP to 2100. For comparison, we are spending $1.5 trillion per year on the "climate industry" now. And that is virually all wasted.

" Stabilisation of populatioin numbers has to be the number one priority."
We'll achieve that fastest by lifting the poor countries out of poverty as quickly as possible. The best way to achieve that is to maximise world economic growth and spread the growth as widely as possible. The way to achieve that is:

1. stop wasting money on ridiculous distractions like CAGW
2. open up trade by reducign trade barriers and moving as fast as possoble to global free
3. Encouraging globalisation
4. Encouraging the large multi-national corporat5es, rather than trying to slow them. They are the very best way to spread wealth from rich to poor and to reduce cost of products and services globally. They also develop all the drugs and other things that are most capable of improving the health and well being of the poorest people.

Dear Peter Lang

Sea-levels are rising and Kiribati and other atolls are low-lying. We can expect seawater incursions into their gardens and drinking water supplies even without the pressures of population growth. We can expect more extreme weather events. If James Hansen is right (though the recent paper has yet to be peer-reviewed) then we may get 3 metres of sea-level rise by the end of the century. If that is the case, Kiribati will be pretty much underwater.

You're wrong when you say the only way top reduce population growth is through economic growth. Plenty of poor countries e.g. Bangladesh, have reduced their fertility rates just through provision of family planning/contraceptives. It's better when wrapped in universal primary health care and accompanied by gender equality and education for women and girls. Economic growth does help (though it's usually correlation rather than causation) but if that economic growth is based on a fossil fuel economy then it makes climate change worse. By all means, lift the poor out of poverty but they have to leapfrog the dirty technologies and energy use that have made us in the West wealthy

popnperish,

You are wrong. It's already been explained to you. That atols rise and fall with sea level has been known for hundreds of years. I learnt about it in geology ins second year of high school in the early 1960s.

You clearly didn't even read the paper I linked.

There is no point making statements of your beliefs.

Dear Peter Lang

Atolls rise with sea-levels but not at the current pace, or certainly not the pace we will see in coming decades. They will be swamped.

No, I didn't read your paper because I stick to reputable scientific journals for my information. Mine are not 'beliefs'; just facts based on scientific evidence.

This is not to dispute what Peter McCloy originally argued. I agree that the problems of overpopulation and adoption of western lifestyles on the island is the immediate problem. The climate change one is, as he says, a cloak to hide the problems which he could himself solve, nevetheless, the effects of sea-level rise will be made manifest before century's end.