Response to Perseus:

So take it your thinking is something like this:
Climate change is a myth --> Therefore any refugee who claims they were victims of a fictional change must be inventing stories.

As far as I am aware, it is unprecedented for refugees to use myths to justify leaving their country. How many refugees flee their homelands due to UFO incursions or voodoo curses? Don't just assume we already know this. What are these good stories?

Of course, if you are wrong about climate change (which you are) then your conclusion has no basis at all.

I dont know much about global warming. However on many topics that i am quite knowledgeable on, i generally find Andrew Bolt to be simplistic and misleading. So from that historical base, i suspect Tim Lambert is probably on the money.

I've written to Benny Peiser and received this response. It is in line with what I have surmised. He retracts some of his criticism of Oreskes' study, but not all. As these are the man's own words I hope we'll hear no more claims from Lambert et al that he has disowned his study. (This comment is in two parts because of the length of Peiser's response).

"Yes, I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much.

Nevertheless, I do maintain that her study is flawed since her main claims are not backed up by the sample of abstracts she used. For a start, she cannot have analysed 928 abstracts as there are only 905 listed in the data bank she claims to have used. Her claim that "75% [of all papers] fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view" is certainly wrong as the majority of abstracts do not even deal with anthropogenic global warming. I have posted all the ISI abstracts Oreskes used on my website for those who want to check the core data: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

In my view, the consensus debate is mainly a political one. After all, I never doubted for a second that the vast majority of climatologists accept the IPCC consensus. The worry of environmental campaigners is that the very existence of a small minority of climate sceptics is used by politicians to delay policy actions that activists deem necessary. That, I think, is one of the key reasons for the in my view unjustified assertion that there is an unanimous consensus among scientists. In any case, there is no longer any government in the world that bases its objection to the Kyoto Protocol or other cententious climate policies on questioning anthropogenic global warming. The main objections in the field of national and international politics has long moved to economic, political and technological considerations...(cont next post

I would point out that one of the main fears of people living on low lying Pacific islands is the potential devastation from storm surges. Perhaps the sceptics could seek the opinions of a few Cyclone Tracy survivors to judge their willingness to sit through a similar cyclone and storm surge on a low lying island. It isn't necessarily a balmy day with the water around your ankles that will worry you.

From the Sopac study linked above:

"Paava and Fualifeke islets (see also next page) are good examples of ongoing soft shoreline movement. It is important to note that these islets do not have permanent inhabitants and little, if any, human disturbance of its shorelines has occurred. There is evidence of facilities built by the US military during the 1940’s (mostly concrete footings, etc.) however, there is no evidence to suggest these have contributed to any of the shoreline changes discussed below. Analysis of the 1984 and 2003 images combined with groundtruthing in September 2004 indicate that the erosion currently occurring on these islets is approximately equivalent to the degree of accretion (accretion = shore-line build up or increase in land area)."

Thus, islands in a natural state are staying the same size.

Here's a quick summary of the problems on Fongafale:

"It is interesting to note that the Meteorological Office and nearby areas on the eastern side of the airstrip are all positioned in or near what is identified in 1941 as upper inter-tidal ironwood thicket. This vegetation type occurs in the high inter-tidal zone and would have previously been subject to regular (at least 1 or 2 times a month) saltwater flooding. Similarly, the freshwater and/or brackish swampy zones correspond well with present taro pits and low lying areas which experience occasional flooding. Similarly, Tafua pond’s former extent was far greater and it appears to have extended west of the runway into what is now housing areas. The identification of these historically low-lying areas helps explain why some parts of Fongafale are vulnerable to saltwater flooding today."

Tuvalu has always been an iffy place to live.

Perseus

Instead of suggesting that ChrisC be tested for schizophrenia or drug residues for a dodgy estimate, perhaps you could enlighten the forum as to how you went from suggesting that atmospheric CO2 was not a cause of global warming,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3734#12199

to commend research into CO2 geosequestration,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=207

to again being critical of the AGW hypothesis? Is this evidence of a multiple personality disorder, or merely a human being trying to make a balanced assessment of a complex problem over many months?