"Tuvalu is literally losing habitable land."

False...oh dear. But if you really want it to be true... http://tiny.cc/ph4g001

"These were warnings - not prophecies "

No they were prophecies right up until they became wrong. Then they got retrospectively downgraded. It like the cultist who predicts the end of the world on a particular day. Even after he's falsified his loyal followers continue to believe and will believe his next prediction just as fervently as the last.

"Schneider quote: clipped, stripped of context,"

Ahh! Standard JD there. Everything he doesn't like and can't refute becomes 'cherry-picked' or 'out-of-context'. But his ASSERTIONS are never explained - never shown the context he wants to believe or how its cherry-picked. Just making the claim is good enough, apparently.

" they contradict your rule."

Who said it was a rule?. Its evidence. Almost all evidence has outliers. They don't disprove the conclusions. Picking a few inconsequential countries where the conclusions don't precisely apply is just childish. I wonder how renewables are going in Botswana? Struth.

No, not false at all, mhaze.

Did you even read the article you linked to? It's not the “gotcha” you think it is.

It discusses how some Pacific islands like Tuvalu have grown in land area due to natural sediment shifts, not because sea levels aren’t rising. In fact, the article reaffirms that climate change is real, and the islands remain vulnerable.

Tuvalu’s government is already relocating populations and investing in adaptation because of rising seas, saltwater intrusion, and disappearing arable land. A dynamic coastline doesn’t cancel out real climate pressure - it just complicates how it plays out.

You’re pointing at a side effect and pretending it disproves the cause. It doesn’t.

Whoops!

//They were prophecies right up until they became wrong. Then they got retrospectively downgraded.//

No, they weren’t prophecies - they were projections, published with ranges, caveats, and confidence levels. You just treated them like prophecies so you’d have something to mock when your worst-case caricature didn’t come true. That’s not scepticism - it’s bad-faith gotcha theatre.

//Everything he doesn't like and can't refute becomes 'cherry-picked' or 'out-of-context'.//

You quoted half of Schneider’s comment about balancing public communication with scientific rigour and cut off the part where he says: “I hope that means being both.” That’s not me claiming it's out of context - it’s the literal rest of the quote. If that’s cherry-picking to you, perhaps it’s because your rhetorical diet is built on it.

//Who said it was a rule? It’s evidence.//

So now it's just “evidence,” not a rule? Your whole claim was that more renewables = higher prices. I showed counterexamples. If the pattern doesn't hold across cases, it's not a general rule - it's a correlation with caveats. Dismissing Portugal, Ireland, and Chile as “inconsequential” doesn’t change the fact they contradict your claim. “What about Botswana?” isn’t a counterpoint - it’s deflection with a punchline.

Still no response to the wholesale vs. retail pricing gap in Denmark, I notice.

Back you go. Try again...

Fester,

Yes - sneers, Mel Smith quotes, and “rainbow-chasing Luddites.” Because nothing says “serious energy policy analyst” like snark, name-calling, and 1970s bedtime stories.

//France decided to source all energy from nuclear... Denmark decided to develop windmills.//

Apples and oranges. France pursued nuclear for baseload electricity - effective, no doubt. But Denmark wasn’t trying to race France. It focused on diversifying energy sources, decentralising generation, and developing exportable wind technology - which it now sells to countries worldwide. Different goals, different strategies. Pretending there’s one right path is a fantasy.

//“Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe…//

Retail prices, yes. But you conveniently left out the part about Danish wholesale prices being among the lowest in Europe. Taxes and levies that fund social programs - not wind turbines - make up the difference.

But why let nuance get in the way of a worldview-reinforcing narrative?

//And [John] thinks the Danish example the one to follow.//

I used Denmark as one of several examples that contradict your claim that more renewables always mean higher costs. It’s called falsification - basic logic. Ignoring counterexamples doesn’t make them disappear.

//Australia’s ISP has been junked… Right up John’s alley.//

The ISP wasn’t “junked” - it was criticised and is being revised, like all major policy models eventually are. That’s not scandal - it’s process. The video you linked is wrapped in drama (“officially dead,” “nails in the coffin”) and light on neutrality. Even its strongest critiques focus on modelling assumptions and unrealistic targets - not a call to abandon renewables or the energy transition entirely.

//One BS story can easily be replaced with another.//

Ironically, that’s exactly what you’re doing - replacing substance with spin, and hoping no one notices.

Speaking of which, I don't suppose you have any examples of discredited arguments I've used, do you? Or are they as imaginary as these mysterious "inconsistencies" and "falsehoods" of mine that you frequently mention, but can never seem to point to?

My arguments are 'dishonest' and 'discredited'? Really? Says who? That thing festering away in a very dark corner ... quick to throw around cheap insults ... but with no capacity whatever to offer up any intelligent rebuttal.

"You’re pointing at a side effect and pretending it disproves the cause. It doesn’t."

I never talked about the cause. I simply said that there were claims that it would disappear and those claims have been shown to be wrong. There's that comprehension problem again.

Very predictable stuff from you again, mhaze.

//I never talked about the cause. I simply said there were claims that it would disappear and those claims have been shown to be wrong.//

You cited an article about Tuvalu’s landmass expanding and posted it in response to me saying Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change. That wasn’t just an innocent observation - it was clearly intended to cast doubt on the broader climate warnings. Now that the article doesn’t say what you hoped it did, you're retreating into “I never said that” - which is telling.

Also, saying an island was “expected to disappear” without referencing who said it, when, and in what context is just hand-waving. Climate science didn’t predict Tuvalu would vanish by now - it warned that rising seas, saltwater intrusion, and erosion were serious threats. Which they still are. You’re pointing to shifting sands and pretending it’s a gotcha.

//There's that comprehension problem again.//

Right - duck, weave, then blame said ducking and weaving on the comprehension skills of the person who exposes it. For best results, fail to appreciate the sheer irony in doing so.

You posted a link in response to a point about climate impacts on Tuvalu’s habitability - not its tectonic shape. The article you shared doesn’t disprove sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, or displacement - it simply notes that sediment movement has altered coastlines. That’s not refutation - it’s contextual detail, and it doesn’t undo the core climate concern.

If you want to argue against climate science, do it directly. But don’t smuggle in implications and then act surprised when they’re unpacked.