Bronwyn,

When you come here and tell lies, you insult not just me, but everyone on this forum. To tell lies here also shows contempt for the forum itself. I'll start with one of your lies:

"10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer."

Really? How so? Based on dishonesty and lies I would guess. And I hope that you don't follow Johnnie's view that it doesn't matter if a claim is debunked as you are never short of other nonsense to support your crank opinions.

You need to apologise for telling lies.

Festering ...

<< When you come here and tell lies, you insult not just me, but everyone on this forum. To tell lies here also shows contempt for the forum itself. >>

I can substantiate every statement I’ve made. If you disagree with something I’ve said, you're welcome to present an opposing argument and support it with some evidence.

Regarding children living near nuclear reactors developing cancer, this is a trend which has been observed for many years and multiple studies have confirmed that there is indeed a correlation … https://www.mapw.org.au/where-is-the-mature-debate-on-radiation

Bronwyn,

Wow, so you are a liar. Caught out. Correlation isn't causation as you know. You have as much integrity as the Wakefield cranks.

How about you provide evidence for your claim. Not too hard for you is it? Here is your statement again to prompt your memory:

"10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer."

Again, you show contempt for me and everyone else here when you tell such lies, and you do little to redeem yourself by getting nasty when called out for it.

JD,

You said "Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change."

I pointed out Tuvalu isn't losing land mass. I made no comment about climate change in regards to Tuvalu. That Tuvalu's not going under doesn't disprove climate change and I'd wager you could find, if you look hard enough, all sorts of other scenarios which would better support your alarmism. But Tuvalu isn't one of them.

I've never disputed climate change. I've never disputed rising sea levels. (Somewhere on these pages are comments from me about Roman ruins underwater due to rising sea levels.) I haven't even disputed Anthropic Global Warming (AGW). But I have often disputed claims about Catastrophic Global Warming. Claims that lead to idiocy like Tuvalu going under, or Perth being a ghost town, or the dams never filling, or NYC going under, or an ice free Arctic.

I find it mildly amusing that my simply pointing out the easily demonstrated fact that alarmism over Tuvalu is misplaced elicits a frenzied response.

Climate change alarmism has a poor history of failed predictions. Yet the adherents to the cult remain convinced that somehow, someday, some way, their alarmism will eventually be justified. The sky is falling... some day.

mhaze,

Now, now - let’s not pretend you were simply making a calm geological observation.

You didn’t just say “Tuvalu’s landmass hasn’t shrunk” - you dropped that claim in response to me saying Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change. That’s saltwater intrusion, crop damage, freshwater contamination - real, lived impacts already displacing people. Pointing out shifting coastlines as if it undermines that is like saying “the house still has four walls” while it’s knee-deep in floodwater.

As for your sudden insistence that you’ve never denied climate change, sea level rise, or even AGW - well, if that’s the case, why the constant sneers about “alarmism” every time someone takes those things seriously?

The whole “cult” routine is a convenient rhetorical trick. You don’t have to prove a prediction wasn’t grounded in science - you just label it “alarmist,” roll your eyes, and move on. But inconveniently, many of the things climate science warned about are happening - record heat, coral bleaching, ice melt, extreme weather, mass displacement. If anything, the predictions have often been too conservative.

So no, my response wasn’t “frenzied.” It was direct. You tried to downplay Tuvalu as a climate case study and got called on it. What’s “mildly amusing” is that even when your misframing is pointed out, your instinct is to shift goalposts and declare victory anyway.

Your tactics might’ve worked on others in the past - and I’m sure they give your supporters something to hold onto when when you're flailing - but they don’t work on me. The sooner you realise this, the sooner we can both save ourselves a lot of time.

Oh dear John, such arrogance.... "they won't work on me"?

But what doesn't work on you is your level of misunderstanding and misconstruing of my points. You construction these strawmen about what you suppose I think and the laud yourself for having knocked down the strawman. Such arrogance.

The whole Tuvalu issue started with me pointing out that it was one of the myriad claims from the alarmist community that has been proven wrong. Tuvalu isn't sinking below rising seas and I pointed that out. And you've not denied that, just tried to deflect. Not playing.

"As for your sudden insistence that you’ve never denied climate change, sea level rise, or even AGW"

Sudden? I'd invite you to go back and look at any of my many many posts over many years on this to see the truth. I doubt you will though.

" why the constant sneers about “alarmism” every time someone takes those things seriously"

As usual you miss the nuance. Its perfectly possible to accept AGW etc without accepting the myriad scare campaigns. I accept that warming has occurred, that man has played some part in that. But I don't accept that its a problem requiring the upending of society and the world economy and I do think that the large number of failed predictions shows that. In fact I think the warming to this point has been beneficial for mankind.

"You tried to downplay Tuvalu as a climate case study"
No I didn't try. I showed that Tuvalu isn't a climate case study by providing a link to actual science. I'm always amused that the follow-the-science crowd always demur when the science shows things they'd prefer weren't true.