Another costly piece of identity politics and belief that some Australians should be treated differently by dint of their race and their ‘special’ threat from ‘climate change’ has been knocked in the head by the Federal Court.

Two Torres Strait Islanders (supposedly on behalf of their community) took the government to court claiming that it had a duty of care to “protect them from climate change”, whatever that means. It seems to be as logical as their idea that the climate was also a threat to their ‘culture’.

The court declined to “recognise either duty or to legally recognise cultural harm”. The ‘climate justice advocates’ were disappointed that this ridiculous claim didn't provide the Mabo-like victory they expected.

The nonsense seems to have arisen from the belief that the government had not set ‘targets’ based on ‘science’ that would keep global warming at no more than 1.5 degrees.

The Torres Strait Islanders, or their urgers, believed the government's promotion of fanciful science and the idea that the climate could be controlled by man - as did so many other people a lot more sophisticated; although the Islanders were alone in expecting the government to fund the construction of sea walls around them.

Despite the obvious scams and scaremongering surrounding climate change, the Court just had to go along with “the existential threat” nonsense; but it wasn't up to the Court to review government emissions targets.

It sounds as if the Court would have liked to interfere.

If the government wants to do something for Torres Strait Islanders in the unlikely event that they look like being washed away, it can offer the same refuge on the mainland as they have offered non-Australians on low-lying Pacific islands.

Until the government accepts that much, if not most, of the climate waffle has been proven wrong - and says so - they will keep getting these vexatious challenges.

https://theconversation.com/federal-court-rules-australian-government-doesnt-have-a-duty-of-care-to-protect-torres-strait-islanders-from-climate-change-25999

Two Torres Strait Islanders (supposedly on behalf of their community) took the government to court claiming that it had a duty of care to “protect them from climate change”
ttbn,
Per Capita the use of generators & indeed anything relying on modern technology on these islands far outweighs that of mainland communities. To claim concern of inundation is literally absurd & nothing but an excuse by mainland & outside academic ignoramuses to extort funding for no need whatsoever. The lifestyle of the people there does not in the slightest reflect any concern about consequences for the environment. The whole show is one big act choreographed by Academia & Bureaucracy from the outside & naturally some local but non-environment orientated interest groups are boarding the bandwagon. They are simply following the money trail. The tactic deployed is to say what people want to hear, no facts required.

Indyvidual,

Yes. Hopefully the decision will put a stop to the extortion attempts of minorities who think there's something special about them. Even scientists who accept the 'rising sea levels' claim, put it at no more than 33mm over 100 years. Although the clear evidence that the land mass of islands in the Pacific has actually increased suggests that the whole thing is BS.

The “culture harm” claim is the silliest.

‘Culture’ has been done to death. Majorities don't carry on about culture. It's a thing of minorities whose individuals can't find inner satisfaction. They need some mass movement, a mob, instead of accepting - or being allowed to accept by do-gooders - that humans are autonomous individuals, irrespective of race, religion or colour. We are not boring blob, or a group of worshipers of some divisive culture that has no place in the 21st. Century, particularly with people leaving backward countries to live in the West.

In the case of Torres State Islanders and other ‘indigenous’ people, they have benefited from modernity long enough to get over old ways and humbug and live like other Australians, and stop moaning and looking for extra handouts not available to anyone else.

I once had a very enlightening discussion about culture with a TIer when working in the straits a number of years ago.

He basically said that many non-indigenous Australians see Islander culture as being fixed at the time when there was initial contact and that their culture is now seen as static and fixed in time.

He talked about culture always changing and always adapting. If this means using dinghies with outboard motors and access to better health care and education then so be it.

It if involves incorporation of a new legal system that allows for a Mabo type claim to land then so be it.

Saibai Islanders moved to the mainland to establish Bamaga because of concerns of high tide flooding on the Island.

The seawall on Saibai was first constructed in the mid-1990s with the latest upgrade being in 2017. Both State and Federal governments have had an interest in protecting this island for decades.

The Saibai Islanders took their case to court as part of their present day culture and that was unsuccessful and they'll have to accept that.

So why all the angst? They lost the case.

Is this just about the Islanders using the legal frameworks available to them? Is it about the Islanders being "uppity" and daring to incorporate the legal system into their modern day culture.

If not, is it unreasonable for the Islanders to expect both governments to continue protection of an Island that they have shown a willing to protect in the past?

Even if the court erroneously found that the Australian government had a duty of care to protect these people from rising sea levels, there isn't a damn (or dam!!) thing the government could do to stop the purported sea level rise.

Even if we all decided to save these people from their fairy-tale fears by stopping all CO2 emissions or by truly implementing a net zero policy, the change in temperatures or sea level rise would be so small as to be immeasurable. Based on IPCC modelling data, taking Australia's CO2 emissions out of the equation would mean that temperatures would rise by 0.0007 degrees less in 2100AD. Sea level rise would be fractions of a millimetre less by the end of the century.

So this isn't about seeking a solution to their claimed problems. Its a money grab. There's been a few of thee around the world recently, all trying to blame this or that cash cow for purported climate problems. All have failed. Logic sometimes still prevails.

WTF

Your interlocutor seems to have been more of an individual than a culture-tragic.

We can't assume that all of a certain group - in this case, Torres Strait Islanders - think alike. Eighty percent of them might not be in a lather about it (we never get to hear from them) and it could be that all the fuss is down to a few activists who enjoy the limelight.

No matter what, there is no evidence that they are in danger of losing their homes or their way of life. If there was, I'm sure they wouldn't be left to their own devices by any Australian government.

Climate change is real, there is ample evidence of that fact. Like they have resisted change in the past, the Usual Suspects won't accept reality. Rising sea levels are with us now, another fact. The tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is experiencing inundation as the sea levels rise and the island is flooding and becoming uninhabitable. Australia has made a gesture by offering 280 special Australian visas to the Tuvaluans, 4,0000 islanders, about a third of the population, subscribed to the ballot for the visas. As the island disappears it will be necessary to relocate the entire population, a reality. AND a couple of comfortable off Old Farts claim climate change is not happening, get real fellas!

WTF?

ttbn states "there is no evidence that they are in danger of losing their homes or their way of life."

As I stated, the township of Bamaga on Cape York Peninsula was founded by Saibai Islanders leaving Saibai because of high tide inundation in the mid-1900s (there was a typo when I said mid-1990s).

At least two attempts have been made to "save" this island by constructing sea walls. The last being in 2017 at a cost of $24.5 million dollars.

These people are in real danger of losing both their homes and their their way of life and this has been the case for decades.

ttbn also states "Eighty percent of them might not be in a lather about it (we never get to hear from them)".

If ttbn has been listening to RN this week he would have been able to hear from many Islanders about this exact issue. So we do get to hear from them but only from those media outlets that bother to find out.

But yes we get it. It's the ABC doing the same "biased" reporting even though it is exactly what that ttbn is asking for.

"Climate change is real".

Yep, very true. Its been changing for the last 4 billion years.

And of coarse, sea levels have been rising on average since the advent of the Holocene some 11,000 years ago.

But none of that is the point. The point is there is precisely nothing the Australian government can do about those things. There is precisely nothing the Australian people can do about those things.

I know there are some who think we can change the weather by giving the government more power, but alas, it ain't so.

In the end this was just a money grab based on false data trying to create a false promise. But at least the lawyers for these people got their cut of the pie, so all's well.....

As to Tuvalu, we've been down this road before so I won't spend too much time educating Paul who hasn't the slightest interest in the truth anyway. But Tuvalu isn't sinking. In many places its growing.

"As National Geographic reported, “Some islands grew by as much as 14 acres (5.6 hectares) in a single decade, and Tuvalu’s main atoll, Funafuti—33 islands distributed around the rim of a large lagoon—has gained 75 acres (32 hectares) of land during the past 115 years.”"

It must be very irritating waiting to be victims for "decades" and nothing happening since the beginning of the last century. They should move to America, where dangerous weather is always happening, and there are some good floods available right now. They could be homeless to their hearts content.

If WTF has not been listening to “RN this week” he would not be full of the bullsh.t that he is now trying to broadcast on behalf of ‘his’ ABC.

Like all left wackjobs, when given the opportunity to discuss a topic, he has more to say about the messenger than the message.

WTF?

Same old ttbn - same old deflection when schooled on a topic.

There is nothing I have stated on this thread that is (as ttbn has said) is "bullsh.t".

First ttbn plucks the figure of 80% out of the air and then claims that "(we never get to hear from them)". When confronted with contrary evidence he resorts to calling it "bullsh.t".

Typically, he gets it wrong again - I'm not broadcasting anything. The ABC is broadcasting the concerns of the people that he wants to hear from. It is ttbn who is calling the reported concerns of the Saibai Islands "bullsh.t" simply because he does not like the media source that has done the legwork for him.

It's your message, ttbn, and I am commenting on your message and your message is incorrect. You need to deal with that.

You sound like Armchair Critic's boyfriend. Getting a little screeching there son.

WTF?

ttbn states: "You sound like Armchair Critic's boyfriend."

It seems that A.C. is living rent free in ttbn's head but worse still he has had to revert to insults.

When schooled ttbn, unable to move on from his ignorance, reverts back to insults.

We all know what is happening here and why.

Schooled, eh? You seem to have slipped through the cracks in that area.

There’s a lot of chest-beating in this thread, but most of it collapses under the weight of basic facts.

“The climate's always changing”
Yes, but not like this. Today’s warming is global, accelerating, and overwhelmingly human-driven - a conclusion supported by the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, the IPCC, and virtually every credible scientific institution. Waving it away with “the climate’s always changed” is like saying house fires aren’t a problem because wood’s always burned.

“Sea level rise is negligible”
Wrong. It’s 3.3mm per year and rising. Saibai Island has suffered tidal flooding, freshwater contamination, and erosion for decades. That’s why both federal and state governments have invested in sea wall construction - most recently in 2017 with a $24.5 million upgrade. These aren't abstract concerns, they’re funded responses to real, ongoing impacts.

“It’s a money grab”
The court case sought legal recognition of a government duty of care, not handouts. Labeling it “extortion” without evidence is nothing but projection.

“Australia’s emissions don’t matter”
We’re one of the world’s top fossil fuel exporters and highest per capita emitters. If we don’t act, who should? That excuse is a permission slip for global inaction.

“Cultural harm is made-up”
Cultural harm is recognised in Australian law. In the Torres Strait, culture is embedded in land, sea, and place. Losing it isn’t just inconvenient, it’s erasure.

“Tuvalu is growing”
That’s a cherry-picked satellite metric. Tuvalu’s government is preparing for relocation because rising seas are rendering parts of the country uninhabitable, despite any net land gain.

“The court disproved climate change”
No. It ruled on legal liability - not scientific reality. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

“Only activists care”
The ABC and SBS have aired countless voices from the Torres Strait. If you're still pretending it’s just a few loud mouths, maybe the problem isn’t the volume - it’s your hearing.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about evidence. It’s about some people being viscerally uncomfortable with the idea that Indigenous voices, climate science, and legal accountability might all be pointing in the same direction. Mockery doesn’t make that go away, it just makes the mocker look smaller.

"The court case sought legal recognition of a government duty of care, not handouts. "

And had the courts found a duty of care, would there not have been immediate claims for actions to perform that duty of care? Not to mention claims for previous failure to on that duty of care. The locals had already said that was their aim. One needs to live in the real world.

"That’s a cherry-picked satellite metric. "
Yes, cherry-picked is the favoured assertion of those who don't like the data. Rather strange for someone making claims about the "weight of basic facts".

"If we don’t act, who should? "

If we do act, who will follow? Who are these governments anxiously waiting to commit as soon as we do.
The "weight of basic facts" are that if we act, we do it alone.

But again, that's not really the point. Even if its true that these islands are going under due to the dreaded CO2, whether we act or not will have zero (or an immeasurably small) affect on that rise. Therefore blaming the rise on failure of the Australian government to act, lacks all semblance of logic.

Which the court, of coarse, recognised, even if it goes over the head the climate change cheer-squad.

mhaze,

Once again, your response does more to prove my point than refute it. Let's look at why...

//Had the courts found a duty of care, would there not have been immediate claims…//

Of course, that’s how legal systems function. If a duty is recognised, breaches of that duty can be challenged. That’s not sinister; it’s the foundation of civil liability law. Asbestos victims didn’t sue the government because they felt like it, they did so after duty and breach were established. You’re not revealing some grand agenda, just basic legal mechanics.

//Yes, cherry-picked is the favoured assertion of those who don’t like the data.//

No, cherry-picking is using one narrow and contextless metric (like net land area gain) to distract. Gaining a few sandy hectares doesn’t matter if rising seas are flooding homes, contaminating wells, and damaging infrastructure. That’s why Tuvalu - despite whatever slivers of land appear on satellite images - is negotiating a relocation treaty with Australia. They understand the difference between land mass and liveable land, even if you don’t.

//If we act, who will follow?//

They already are, and not because they were waiting for us. The EU, UK, US, Japan, South Korea, and even China have adopted emissions targets and are investing heavily in decarbonisation. Australia isn’t being asked to lead the parade, we’re being asked to stop pretending we’re too irrelevant to walk in it. My “If we don’t act, who should?” wasn't a call for leadership, it was a challenge to the logic of doing nothing.

//Blaming the rise on the Australian government lacks logic.//

No one said Australia single-handedly controls sea levels. The case was about whether a government has a duty of care to its own citizens in light of foreseeable harm. That’s a legal principle - not an emissions audit.

You keep telling us to “live in the real world.” I am. It’s you who keeps mistaking Google snippets and vibes for facts and law.

But by all means - keep dodging, reframing, and nitpicking. Every post just sharpens the contrast between engaging in good faith and running interference.

Trumpster,

You must sharpen up your game, presenting your outlandish speculative opinion as fact, won't do. Your claim that "Tuvalu isn't sinking. In many places its growing" That is not the reality, as far as human habitation is concerned, the Tuvaluans are under severe stress from rising sea levels, as their homes are inundated. Of course that doesn't concern the likes of you. In my opinion the Australian and New Zealand governments should instigate a resettlement program in our respective countries, for the entire population (12,000) as soon as possible.

For a bit of fun, mhaze - and to really drive home the point about your bad-faith dodging, reframing, and nitpicking - let’s take a look at what my post would have needed to say to justify the way you responded to it...
_____

There’s a lot of chest-beating in this thread, but most of it collapses under the weight of basic facts.

“It’s a money grab”
*The court case sought legal recognition of a government duty of care, not handouts.* There’s no risk of further claims or legal consequences, it was purely symbolic. Anyone suggesting otherwise is fearmongering.

“Tuvalu is growing”
*That’s a cherry-picked satellite metric.* Tuvalu shows us exactly what sea level rise is doing, regardless of what satellite data says. It doesn’t matter if the islands are technically gaining land, the point is that climate change is drowning them. There’s no room for debate here.

“Australia’s emissions don’t matter”
We have to act. *If we don’t act, who should?* Once we lead, others will follow. The world is watching us, and waiting for us to set the example. Our failure to act is why sea levels are rising. It's as simple as that.

Posted by John Daysh, Monday, 21 July 2025 11:24:16 AM
_____

Now compare that to what I actually wrote.

Spot the differences?

"Your claim that "Tuvalu isn't sinking. In many places its growing" That is not the reality, "

So Paul, as usual you failed to read and /or understand the science I linked and then claim it doesn't exist. Same old.

Trumpster,

What don't you understand about, "That is not the reality, as far as human habitation is concerned, the Tuvaluans are under severe stress from rising sea levels, as their homes are inundated." I know your logic about the word "bigger" The highest population density in Australia is Melbourne CBD 38,401 folks per sq km. The total area of Australia is 7,692,024 sq km's. By your wacko logic Australia can support a population of 295,381,413,624, bobs, sorry that's 623, you gotta go, maybe to some of that soggy sand on Tuvalu, that solves the Worlds over population problem.

mhaze,

You claimed Paul “failed to read the science [you] linked,” but didn’t link anything. So I’ll do it for you.

You were paraphrasing a quote from a 2018 National Geographic article covering a study by Kench et al., which you’ve linked in a previous debate of ours on Tuvalu before disappearing when it was shown to contradict your claims.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10465&page=0

The original NG article is no longer available online, but the study it was based on is here:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

The study found that some islands in Tuvalu have grown in land area, but it explicitly states this does not mean the islands are safe from sea-level rise. From the study itself:

“They do not negate the threats from sea-level rise, especially for habitability, infrastructure, and freshwater.”

That matches what both National Geographic and ScienceAlert said: that growing landmass does not equal safety or liveability - nor does it contradict the fact that sea levels are rising.

So if that’s the “science” Paul supposedly didn’t read, it looks like he understood it just fine. You, on the other hand, are citing headlines while ignoring the content - again.

Denialism 101.

JD

Why is this so hard.

1. I had previously linked to the science. Paul ignored it.

2. The Kench et al study is here... http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

3. No one is saying the islands are safe or don't need help. But the assertion that they ARE (present tense) sinking under the rising sea levels is false. Just wanting it to be true isn't the same as it being true.

4. There are lots of reasons why Tuvalu is a poster-child of the we're-all-gunna-die crowd but most of them relate to ill-governance and not CO2. For example the depletion of the fresh water lens under these islands isn't a function of rising sea levels but of a growing population and failure to conserve the lens.

5. "Nor does it contradict the fact that sea levels are rising"

I never said sea levels aren't rising. See above..."And of coarse, sea levels have been rising on average since the advent of the Holocene some 11,000 years ago.". You just assume that if I don't buy one part of the scare, I don't buy any of it. A typical response from the sky-is-falling crowd.

mhaze,

You now say “No one is saying the islands are safe or don’t need help,” but that’s not how you framed it earlier.

You told Paul “Tuvalu isn’t sinking. In many places it’s growing,” and quoted National Geographic to imply there’s no real danger. No caveats, no qualifications, just dismissal of “the we’re-all-gunna-die crowd.” Now that the actual Kench et al. study has been quoted - the one you cited - you’ve changed tune completely.

That study explicitly states that growing landmass does not negate threats from sea-level rise, especially to habitability, infrastructure, and freshwater. It doesn’t contradict sea level rise, it reinforces its impacts. So either you misunderstood the study, or you hoped others wouldn’t read past the headline.

You also claimed the island’s freshwater issues are due to “ill-governance” rather than climate, as though rising seas don’t cause saltwater intrusion. That’s not scientific nuance; it’s blame-shifting.

Then there’s your fallback: “Sea levels have been rising since the Holocene.” Sure. But not like this. What’s happening now is faster, global, and human-driven - that’s the difference. You’re pointing to the slow leak in the past to downplay the flood happening now.

All of this follows a familiar pattern: minimize, deflect, and when pressed, retreat behind semantic hedges. You didn’t lead with “Tuvalu needs help” - you led with “Tuvalu is growing.” Now that the data undercuts your argument, you want credit for not denying the crisis entirely.

Sorry, but that’s not how good-faith debate works.

JD,

This, like so much of the climate debate, is about tense. The islands AREN'T presently sinking but, since it can't be proven that they won't sink in the future, people like you treat is as though its proven.

The Kench paper proves the islands aren't currently sinking. Indeed the opposite. But it does add the caveat that things might be different in the future. And its that caveat that you cling to. I talk about the here and now. Here and now the islands are growing and their problems, while man-made, haven't anything to do with CO2.

As to the freshwater issue - read up how the freshwater lenses work on coral islands. They get befouled by too much water being taken out not by salt water getting in. Indeed, as the islands grow they should have more freshwater resources. They don't due to government errors.

"What’s happening now is faster, global, and human-driven"

And now we're back to the same argument we had over temperatures. No one knows that the recent rises are unprecedented. We don't know they're faster than other comparable periods although they were certainly faster in the early Holocene. I'll agree they're global but all sea level rise is, over time, global. Human-driven? Well we know at least some of it is natural since been happening long before the dreaded CO2 played a part, so how much is human driven is not yet known.

"You didn’t lead with “Tuvalu needs help” - you led with “Tuvalu is growing.”

I emphasis the important issues. That its growing is the crux of the issue, even though you wish it wasn't. I don't say Tuvalu needs help over the rising seas, although it might at some point in the future, which was Kench's point also. I do say they need help over their ill-governance.

Tense. The realists want to talk about what's happening now. The chicken-littles want to talk up what might happen in the future.

mhaze,

Your post is a perfect example of how denialism survives not through facts, but framing.

//This is about tense.//

No, it’s about misdirection.

You frame Tuvalu’s crisis as hypothetical because some islands have grown in size - ignoring the fact that habitability is declining now due to tidal flooding, salination, and infrastructure damage. “Growing landmass” isn’t a shield against saltwater in your well or sewage in your street. That’s why Tuvalu itself is negotiating a relocation treaty, not because of a future maybe, but a present reality.

//I talk about the here and now.//

Except you don’t.

You cherry-pick one variable (landmass) and ignore everything else happening “here and now.” The Kench paper doesn’t support your position, it states explicitly that land gain does not mean the islands are safe. You’re not talking about “the now.” You’re talking about one part of “the now,” hoping no one notices the rest.

//How much is human-driven is not yet known.//

It is.

CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and the entire peer-reviewed body of climate science say the current acceleration is overwhelmingly human-driven. Handwaving with “we don’t know” isn’t nuance, it’s obfuscation.

//The realists want to talk about what’s happening now.//

No, scientists do.

And they’re ringing the alarm because we’re already seeing the impacts. Realism isn’t pretending it’s fine until the water is knee-deep, it’s listening to those measuring the tide.

Your game is clear: keep everything “tentative,” play the tone police, and treat emerging crises as hypothetical until they’re unignorable - at which point, of course, it’s “too late.” The pattern is familiar. And it’s not realism. It’s retreat disguised as reason.

On Tuvalu, we've gone from "its sinking" to "ok its not sinking but it floods occasionally". I'll take the win.

"You cherry-pick one variable (landmass) "

Again with the cherry-pick assertion. Translation - its data you'd prefer didn't exist and most definitely prefer I didn't mention.
The original claim was that the islands were sinking. That's now been so thoroughly disproven that you don't even try to defend it anymore, instead seeking to realign the claim to something quite different.

OK the patient doesn't have cancer as we claimed, but he's still got an ingrown toe-nail which is even worse....or something.

"CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and the entire peer-reviewed body of climate science say the current acceleration is overwhelmingly human-driven. "

Overwhelmingly is one of those weaselly words that can mean all sorts of things. I said that at least part of the rise is natural. You claim I'm overwhelmingly wrong. The IPCC says the rise is 50%-80% human caused. Others (eg Kopp et al or Slangen et al) also come up with the 50% figure. You might think that's overwhelming. I don't.

"Realism isn’t pretending it’s fine until the water is knee-deep,"

Even taking the IPCC alarmist scenarios, it won't be knee deep for another three generations. By then, using IPCC economic scenarios, those generations will be 4 times wealthier than us and therefore 4 times better able to handle whatever problems might arise. The trouble with the doomsayers is that they think our descendants will be morons, walking around knee deep in water and not able to work out how to build a wall or move a few meters inland.

Who said Tuvalu isn't sinking, mhaze?

//We’ve gone from ‘its sinking’ to ‘ok its not sinking but it floods occasionally’. I’ll take the win.//

Apart from you, that is:

“Tuvalu isn’t sinking. In many places its growing.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371043)

Meanwhile, the study you leaned on explicitly says:

“They do not negate the threats from sea-level rise, especially for habitability, infrastructure, and freshwater.”

So no, you don’t get the win. You get a reminder that net landmass disprove the fact that Tuvalu is sinking.

You dismiss that as “cherry-picking,” then claim:

//The original claim was that the islands were sinking. That’s now been so thoroughly disproven…//

Except it hasn’t.

Sea levels are rising. Tuvalu is experiencing increased flooding, saltwater intrusion, and the government is actively pursuing relocation options.
If anything’s been thoroughly disproven, it’s your attempt to spin a sandbank into a safe haven.

Then there’s this:

//Overwhelmingly is one of those weaselly words…//

Actually, it’s the opposite. A weasel word is vague or evasive, like saying something “may be” or “some believe”. But “overwhelmingly” is a quantitative term. It means most by far; usually 70%, 80%, 90% or more.

So when you quote studies saying 50–80% of sea level rise is human-caused, and then scoff at the word “overwhelmingly”, you’re not exposing spin - you’re just rejecting plain English. You cite studies estimating 50–80% human attribution, then scoff as though that’s trivial. If your house was 80% on fire, would you call the rest “natural variability”?

//Even taking the IPCC alarmist scenarios, it won’t be knee deep for another three generations.//

You miss the point. Tuvalu’s problems aren’t future hypotheticals - they’re already resettling families, reinforcing seawalls, and negotiating climate migration deals with Australia. Your fallback on “not knee-deep yet” ignores all of that.

So no, there’s no “win” here. Just a trail of bad-faith pivots and a refusal to face what your own sources actually say.

Of course, I meant to say:

"You get a reminder that net landmass does not disprove the fact that Tuvalu is sinking."

But since I’m blowing a post on that correction, let’s head off some predictable sidesteps...

No one here is confusing “sinking” with tectonic subsidence. In this context, it clearly refers to land becoming increasingly uninhabitable due to sea-level rise - including flooding, saltwater intrusion, and freshwater depletion. If the water is rising faster than people can adapt, the land is sinking in every meaningful human sense.

That’s why your original claim - “Tuvalu isn’t sinking. In many places it’s growing” - wasn’t just wrong, it was misleading. When challenged, you shifted to “OK, it floods occasionally”, then again to “they might need help in the future - just not because of CO2.”

It’s the same pattern every time:

- Present threats? Dismissed as “overstated” or “bad governance”
- Future threats? Brushed off because “they’ll be richer by then”
- Rising seas? “Well, the sea levels have been rising since the Holocene"

You even cite a study that says “they do not negate the threats from sea-level rise, especially for habitability, infrastructure, and freshwater,” then wave it away as irrelevant because the sandbanks are larger.

This isn’t scientific disagreement, it’s denial-by-distraction. Every time the evidence firms up, you reframe the question, change the timeframe, or pin the blame elsewhere.

That’s why nothing you say ever quite lands, and why everything you dodge keeps piling up behind you.

In the same way as it was obvious you didn't understand how freshwater lenses worked on coral atolls, you clearly don't understand how these atolls form and sustain themselves. The increase in the land mass of some of the islands isn't fluck or a mere passing phase. Its how the whole system works. The islands accumulate corl and other flotsam over the years and grow thusly. These atolls are always just a few feet above sea level irrespective of that sea level. They always suffer some flooding from unusual king tides and storm surges. Picking a moment in time and saying its different to the past because you want to believe that, isn't really valid or accurate.

They are building sea walls to try to change the nature of the atoll but saying their problems are all CO2 related is just more of the climate change scare-book.

Overwhelmingly inane.
The estimates for the causes of the sea level rise from the IPCC and various peer-reviewed papers (which you seem to be enamoured of) say that its 50%-80% caused by man. I'm not the least bit surprised that you only see the higher figures- the committed warmist always sees the high-end prediction and then assumes its the only prediction. At least until its disproven and then they assert that they never believed it. Be that as it may, the predictions of 50% could just as easily be correct. And that's not overwhelming.

Well, that didn’t take long, mhaze!

You’ve now ticked off nearly every move I predicted you’d make in my last post. Right on cue:

- Dismissing present-day flooding as “normal king tides”? Check!

- Blaming poor governance instead of CO2? Check!

- Pretending that land accretion equals habitability? Check!

- Recasting net landmass gain as “how the whole system works,” while ignoring actual threats to infrastructure and freshwater? Check!

- Arguing that 50–80% human attribution isn’t “overwhelming”? Check!

- Sneering at “high-end predictions” that no one actually cited? Check!

It’s like you were racing to fulfill a checklist.

You say Tuvalu’s “always just a few feet above sea level,” as if that’s reassuring. It’s not. That’s precisely why sea-level rise poses such a threat. No tectonic activity is needed, just the steady rise we’ve been measuring for decades.

You also write, “The islands accumulate coral and other flotsam over the years and grow thusly,” as if that natural process can somehow outpace the rate of human-driven sea-level rise. Spoiler: it can’t. That’s why Tuvalu is reinforcing seawalls, relocating families, and negotiating climate migration deals - not because of bad plumbing, but because the water’s already coming in.

And as for calling “overwhelming” a weasel word - again - no, it simply means: “very great in amount.” Which 80% clearly qualifies as. That’s emphasis, not evasion.

So go ahead and claim a win if it helps you sleep at night. But from where I’m standing, it looks more like you walked into the ring, swung at the air, and declared a knockout.

"You’ve now ticked off nearly every move I predicted"

Predicting after the event doesn't count.

And merely saying you don't like what I said doesn't disprove it although misrepresenting what I said is very JD.

"Recasting net landmass gain as “how the whole system works,” . Just because you were unaware of that doesn't make it false.

"Which 80% clearly qualifies as."

Again you go for the high number. Another thing you seem to unaware of is that, statistically, when the IPCC says the number is 50%-80%, its just as likely to be 50% as it is 80%. But alarmists always go for the big scary number, so I can't really blame you.

mhaze,

You're right, predicting after the event doesn’t count. Which is why I posted that list before you replied.

You then proceeded to tick off nearly every point like it was a checklist. If you'd like to backtrack and say you didn’t write the things you wrote, be my guest. But don’t pretend the chronology isn't right there in black and white.

//Just because you were unaware of that doesn't make it false.//

Nobody was unaware, mhaze. What you’re doing is reframing your own claim - that Tuvalu “isn’t sinking” - after it collapsed under scrutiny. You’re now trying to change the terms mid-debate, hoping no one notices.

You cited net landmass gain as your proof. When habitability came up, you pivoted to geology. When that didn’t stick, you moved to coral mechanics. Then governance. Each time, you shifted the goalposts. That’s not an argument - it’s a retreat in slow motion.

//Statistically, when the IPCC says 50%-80%, it’s just as likely to be 50% as it is 80%.//

That’s not how ranges work. The 50–80% figure reflects uncertainty bounds, not a 50/50 coin toss. And even if it were, you’d still be conceding that half of sea level rise is human-caused - which only further weakens your position.

So no, I picked the higher number because it’s scientifically plausible, well-supported, and devastating to your argument.

And you clearly knew it.

None of this is alarmism. It’s basic, observable reality. If the best you can do is quibble over upper-bound estimates or redefine “sinking” midstream, it’s no wonder the argument keeps slipping out from under you.

Now you're just making stuff up. Now you say you predicted I would say, for example, "Blaming poor governance instead of CO2? Check!". But you didn't predict that, did you? Just making it up within the same thread isn't a good look.

"You’re now trying to change the terms mid-debate, hoping no one notices." No. You're confusing what you did with what you now say I did. I've been consist in saying its not sinking. When you realised that was correct (and just getting you to realise that is a minor miracle in itself) you then wanted to talk about habitability. I've never denied that living there would be less than pleasant, just that those conditions haven't changed since the first Polynesian arrived around 500 years ago. I've been consistent, you're flaying around trying to find a form of words that you think will salvage some pride. You failed.

"The 50–80% figure reflects uncertainty bounds, not a 50/50 coin toss"

More misunderstanding. I didn't say it was 50/50. I said 50% was as equally likely as 80%. Each would be less likely than 65% given the range is a bell curve.

Do you know what a bell curve is or do I need to explain that as well?

You're flailing, mhaze.

The prediction you’re now quibbling over was posted directly before your reply, and the specific points listed - present threats dismissed, future threats waved off, sea levels brushed away with Holocene trivia - were exactly what you followed up with. That was the point.

As for governance, you literally wrote:

“Their problems, while man-made, haven’t anything to do with CO2.”
“I do say they need help over their ill-governance.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371095

And now you're pretending I made that up?

//Just getting you to realise that [Tuvalu isn’t sinking] is a minor miracle in itself//

Except - again - I didn’t concede that.

I clarified what “sinking” means in the context of habitability and sea level rise, a clarification you dodged repeatedly until you could recast the entire exchange as a victory lap. If you’d like to pretend your initial claim about growing sandbanks was vindicated by a study that explicitly warns about “threats to habitability, infrastructure, and freshwater,” go right ahead. But don’t expect the rest of us to forget what you actually said.

//Each [value] would be less likely than 65% given the range is a bell curve.//

Thanks for the lecture, but you were the one arguing that 50% was just as likely as 80% - now you’re suddenly talking about probabilities along a curve. Glad to see you’ve come around to the point I made: that 80% is a scientifically plausible figure, not cherry-picked alarmism.

You can keep tossing out smirks and strawmen, but if you’re going to accuse someone of flailing while changing your argument for the fourth time in two days, maybe don’t do it mid-sentence.

The problem for you isn’t just that the argument slipped away, it’s that I've been pointing out exactly when, how, and why - every step of the way.

Just to pre-empt the inevitable gotcha attempt:

Yes, some of the points I listed in my “prediction” post had already been made by you earlier in the thread. That wasn’t the point.

The point was that those moves - dismissing current issues as governance, brushing off future risk because “they’ll be richer,” and hand-waving sea level rise with Holocene trivia - form a pattern. One you’ve used before, and one I knew would reappear the moment your central claim was challenged.

That’s why it doesn’t matter whether those lines came two posts earlier or two posts later. You’re not innovating, you’re cycling through a script. And that’s what I was pointing out.

mhaze,

At this point, it’s becoming clear that you’re not defending a coherent position - you’re just reacting to mine.

You’re not making a case that can be tested, challenged, or improved. You’re just deflecting. You don’t build a position, you reject mine. And that’s why this debate keeps sliding sideways.

So let’s do what you’ve avoided this entire thread: spell out your actual stance. Not in sneers, not in snipes, but in clear and testable claims.

Because right now, all we can piece together from your evasions and pivots is something like this:

- Tuvalu isn’t “sinking” because some landmass is growing.
- Sea-level rise isn’t a big deal because it’s always happened.
- If problems do exist, it’s due to poor governance, not CO2.
- The whole climate concern is exaggerated to scare people.
- Even if humans are responsible for some sea-level rise, 50% isn’t “overwhelming.”

That’s the best approximation anyone could make of your position; not because we’re misrepresenting you, but because you keep ducking and weaving the moment anything specific is pinned down.

If that’s not your view, then say what is. Because unless you can lay out a clear position - with evidence, not eye-rolls - this isn’t a debate, it’s a game of dodgeball. And we’ve all seen how that ends.

Your move.

If you say the sky is blue and then I later write that I predict you'll say the sky is blue, that's not a valid prediction. Just a false attempt at regaining some pride.

Find me a post where you predict I'll blame Tuvalu's problems on ill-governance BEFORE I actually said it, and then we'll talk. Otherwise I'm left to ponder whether I've over-estimated your abilities and/or honesty.

- Tuvalu isn’t “sinking” because some landmass is growing.

No quite. Tuvalu isn't sinking because its growing. Coral atolls don't usual sink.

- Sea-level rise isn’t a big deal because it’s always happened.

Not quite. Sea level rise isn't a problem because the rate (a foot a century)is quite manageable.

- If problems do exist, it’s due to poor governance, not CO2.

Not if. Problems do exist in Tuvalu. And they are due to ill-governance.

- The whole climate concern is exaggerated to scare people.

Exaggerated by some people and the media.

- Even if humans are responsible for some sea-level rise, 50% isn’t “overwhelming.”

Not if. Humans are responsible for some portion of the sea level rise. The portion is unknown but could be as low as 50% in which case 50% is natural. Would you say that shows that the rise is overwhelmingly due to nature? Stand by for a fudge here.

Your position otoh is that you want Tuvalu to be sinking and therefore it is. A position that then morphs into assertions that sinking is no longer the point once the point has been lost.

mhaze,

You’re fixating on the word “predict” as if the entire argument hinges on clairvoyance. But that list wasn’t some cheap magic trick, it was a summary of patterns you’ve followed time and time again. And in your 10:56 AM comment, you ticked off every single one:

- You dismissed flooding as “normal king tides”
- Denied CO2; as the cause
- Equated landmass gain with resilience
- Reframed it as “how the system works”
- Downplayed 50-80% attribution as “not overwhelming”
- Mocked high-end estimates that weren’t even cited

That wasn’t me inventing a win. That was you racing through your usual checklist like it was instinct.

Now, back to the actual issue…

You’ve confirmed again that your position isn’t a coherent argument, it’s just a reflex: deny climate causality, downplay the scale of the threat, and shift blame somewhere else. It’s the same cycle, over and over.

//Tuvalu isn’t sinking because it’s growing. Coral atolls don’t usually sink.//

That’s semantics dressed as substance. “Sinking” here means sea-level rise outpacing human adaptation, not tectonic subduction. Call it what you like: when seawater replaces freshwater, the result for people living there is the same.

//Sea level rise isn’t a problem because the rate … is quite manageable.//

Manageable for whom? Coastal engineers? Wealthy nations? Tuvalu’s 11,000 residents? That “foot a century” figure is already being exceeded in some regions. And even if it weren’t, slow drowning is still drowning.

//The portion is unknown but could be as low as 50%.//

So when you cite the low end, it’s “realism.” When I cite the high end, it’s “alarmism”? Both figures - from the same sources - undermine your position. You just don’t like it when they’re used plainly.

//Your position is that you want Tuvalu to be sinking…//

No, my position is that the peer-reviewed literature (including the studies you brought up) warns of serious threats to Tuvalu’s infrastructure, freshwater, and long-term habitability. You ignore that because it contradicts your narrative.

You still haven't built a case, you just rejected mine again. And that’s why we’re not debating. We’re circling.

At this point, mhaze, it’s clear you’re not building a case. You’re playing defence.

You don’t hold a consistent position; you just cycle through tactical talking points, chosen only to block whatever argument you’re facing in the moment.

That’s why:

- Tuvalu isn’t sinking - because landmass is growing
- But if it is sinking - it’s not due to CO2
- But if it is due to CO2 - only 50% of sea-level rise is human-caused
- But even if humans are causing most of it - it’s all exaggerated
- But even if it’s not exaggerated - Tuvalu’s real issue is bad governance
- But even if governance isn’t the problem - they’ve always been a few feet above sea level, so…

Rinse, repeat.

That’s not an argument. That’s rhetorical whack-a-mole.

You don’t commit to a view because committing means being accountable, and being accountable would mean that your claims can be tested. Instead, your umbrella strategy is just:

“Nothing is as bad as you're saying - for whatever reason I need right now.”

That’s the closest thing you have to a unifying principle. Pretty terrible, isn’t it.

So when I say you don’t build a position, I mean it. You reject mine, shift the goalposts, and play gotcha with wording, hoping to land an ad hom jab that will discredit or undermine.

But substance? That never arrives.

You were the first to claim you predicted my arguments. But when I ask for a concrete example, suddenly its a peripheral issue. I ask "Find me a post where you predict I'll blame Tuvalu's problems on ill-governance BEFORE I actually said it," and you suddenly don't want to talk about it anymore. I guess that solves the question as to whether I "over-estimated your abilities and/or honesty."

"“Sinking” here means sea-level rise outpacing human adaptation,"
No sinking means the accumulation of sediment and all the other forms of debris that formed the island is out-paced by rising sea levels. Currently, since the islands are growing, the accumulation of island forming matter is out-pacing the slow sea level rise. Which has been my point from the outset.

"And even if it weren’t, slow drowning is still drowning.

Yeah because our descendants will be morons who can't move a yard inland to avoid the 1 foot rise. OR build a wall. Maybe they could have a yarn with the Dutch who've been holding back the sea for half a millennium. And bear in mind, that according to IPCC figures they'll be vastly richer than us and therefore vastly better placed to afford mitigation.

50%- 80%. I'm not surprised that you only want to talk about the big scary number and ignore the less scary one. Funny how you suddenly want to ignore IPCC figures when they don't tell the story you want to hear.

"You still haven't built a case, ..."

I wasn't building a case. I was merely bringing forth facts that Paul, who started this and then skedaddled, was obviously unaware of and which you preferred not mentioned.

mhaze,

You say you're not building a case, just "bringing forth facts." But curiously, the facts you bring only ever serve to deflect or downplay, never to inform a coherent position.

And yes, I did claim you'd revert to predictable talking points - and you ticked off every one. That’s not clairvoyance, that’s pattern recognition.

Now, onto your latest evasions:

//Our descendants will be morons who can’t move a yard inland…//

A yard?

Tuvalu’s landmass is mostly narrow, low-lying strips. You can’t just “move inland” on an atoll. And what land there is must also support housing, infrastructure, agriculture, and freshwater access - all of which are already under pressure from rising seas and salinisation. This isn’t a game of hopscotch. The Dutch you cite have vast resources, favourable geography, and centuries of planning.

Tuvalu doesn’t.

//You suddenly don’t want to talk about it anymore…//

You mean the ill-governance line?

I addressed that before you even claimed I didn’t - and in the very post you’re replying to. I said it’s your go-to fallback once every other point runs out of steam. Which you’ve just confirmed again.

//I wasn’t building a case…//

Exactly. That’s the problem. You’re not engaging, you’re reacting. You reject. You deflect. But you never commit. That way, you can bounce between talking points without ever being pinned down.

It’s not honesty, it’s strategy.

As for your "50% isn’t overwhelming" claim - even if we grant the low-end estimate, you're still admitting human influence on a global sea-level threat. That alone makes your glib dismissals and "just build a wall" logic look absurdly unserious.

"You’ve now ticked off nearly every move I predicted..."

But you didn't predict anything did you?

"I did claim you'd revert to predictable talking points"

No you said you predicted it. Its pretty funny to watch you squirm here trying to get out of that gaff. I know its a minor point but its still funny so I think I'll continue to tug on that thread while-ever you refuse to own up.

"//You suddenly don’t want to talk about it anymore…//"
I was referring to you not wanting to talk about your claims that you predicted my points. Which you didn't and which you are now trying to get out of, which is awfully funny.

" you're still admitting human influence on a global sea-level threat. That alone makes your glib dismissals and "just build a wall" logic look absurdly unserious."

I never once disputed that there was some human influence. Never once. You just assume that would be my position and then demand that I retract claims I never made. Its almost your entire schtick these days. Yes, seas are rising. Yes some part of that is caused by man. Yes its a problem to be addressed. No its not a problem that is difficult to address. And again, if man's emissions aren't the entire cause of the rise, even if we were to magically have no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue and the problem would still be there to be resolved. But I think you won't understand that.

mhaze,

You’re still tugging on the “predict” bit because that’s all you’ve got - and you don't even really have that.

I didn’t misrepresent your behaviour, I described it. Accurately. The list wasn’t mystical foresight; it was pattern recognition. I said you’d cycle through the usual talking points, then showed exactly how you did.

That’s not squirming, that’s a mirror.

The real reason you’re clinging to this minor word choice is because the rest of your response offers… nothing.

//Yes, seas are rising. Yes some part of that is caused by man. Yes it’s a problem to be addressed.//

Congratulations - you’ve just contradicted the entire tone and thrust of your previous posts.

Because if you accept that sea-level rise is real, partly human-caused, and needs addressing… then why all the flippancy? Why the dismissals, deflections, and “just build a wall” quips?

You want to acknowledge the problem in theory, while treating it like a punchline in practice. That’s not consistency. It’s evasion.

Then comes this:

//Even if we magically had no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue…//

Which is both true and irrelevant.

The point isn’t whether nature contributes, it’s whether our actions are accelerating the threat. And they are. Which means reducing emissions is still necessary. That’s how causality works. But instead of grappling with that, you:

- nitpick wording,
- project arguments onto me I haven’t made,
- and now act like your vague, reactive stance was your position all along.

It wasn’t. It evolved under pressure - from "not a problem," to "not a CO2 problem," to "not an unmanageable problem," to "okay fine, but not my fault."

You call that “facts.” I call it goalpost relocation with a thesaurus. And all because you still can’t admit that “more land” doesn’t mean “more liveable.”

This just keeps getting worse and worse for you.

Still trying to find a way out of your self-made prediction pickle. You claimed to have predicted my points and when asked to provide even one example of predicting BEFORE I'd made my points you run and obfuscate.

Still funny.

"//Even if we magically had no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue…// Which is both true and irrelevant."

Yes its true. Miracle that you now get it. But its only irrelevant if you want to be. Seas are rising. They'll rise no matter what we do. Maybe not as fast but nonetheless. And therefore that will need to be addressed by the grandkids of our grandkids.

"It evolved under pressure - from "not a problem," to "not a CO2 problem," to "not an unmanageable problem," to "okay fine, but not my fault.""

You put all those things in quotes. But I didn't say them. Just making stuff up is so JD.

"you still can’t admit that “more land” doesn’t mean “more liveable.”"

Why do I have to admit that. I never denied it. Tuvalu is a sh!thole and has been for centuries. Its no less liveable now than it was in 1925 or 1825.

My original and remaining point was that its not sinking. That its got more land today than yesterday. You don't want that to be true but know it is. So you go off on these diversions and complain that I won't follow you down the garden path.

mhaze,

You’re still clinging to the word “predict” like the whole thread hinges on clairvoyance. But what I posted was a list of rhetorical moves you always fall back on, and you ran through all of them in your 10:56 AM post:

Prediction: Present threats? Dismissed as “overstated” or “bad governance”
You wrote: “...but saying their problems are all CO2 related is just more of the climate change scare-book.”

Prediction: Rising seas? “Well, sea levels have been rising since the Holocene.”
You wrote: “These atolls are always just a few feet above sea level... Picking a moment in time... isn’t valid or accurate.”

Prediction: Cite a study warning of habitability threats, then wave it away because the landmass increased
You wrote: “The increase in the land mass... isn’t fluke or a mere passing phase. It’s how the whole system works.”

Prediction: Downplay attribution of sea-level rise
You wrote: “The predictions of 50% could just as easily be correct. And that’s not overwhelming.”

Prediction: Frame high-end figures as alarmist
You wrote: “The committed warmist always sees the high-end prediction…”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371115

//Even if we had no emissions...//

Yes, I understand natural factors play a role. But we can’t influence those, we can influence ours. Saying “it would rise anyway” is like refusing to treat a fever because aging also raises body temperature. You’re dodging responsibility, not arguing causality.

//You put all those things in quotes. But I didn't say them.//

Thanks, Captain Obvious. Yes, I was paraphrasing. Do you need me to quote what you actually said there too?

//Why do I have to admit that? I never denied it.//

No, but you leaned on land accretion as a counter to sea-level rise - repeatedly - while ignoring that increased landmass does nothing for freshwater, infrastructure, or arable land. So yes, you did deny it.

And once again:

//My point is it’s not sinking.//

No, your point is that the landmass is growing. But “sinking” in this context refers to human habitability. This isn’t about sediment.

It’s about survival. And you keep missing that - or avoiding it.

Oh Dear, another raving thread !
The University of Auckland's Coastal Institute put this to bed a few
years back.
In a survey of Pacific Islands compared to aerial photographs from
1945 65% of islands were larger, 30% were the same and 5% were smaller.
A completely different set of deniers this time.

Bezza,

You’ve cited the very study we’ve been discussing (Kench et al. (2018).) And yes, they are the ones who found that many atolls have grown in landmass. No one here is denying that. In fact, it’s been cited repeatedly - by me - in this very thread.

What you’ve missed is that growing landmass doesn’t make an island more habitable, especially when that land is salt-contaminated, flood-prone, and lacking the infrastructure to keep up with population needs. And it certainly doesn’t contradict the fact that sea levels are rising, nor that this rise is accelerating.

Kench et al. also said this:

“These shoreline changes do not negate the myriad challenges that low-lying island nations face from sea-level rise, particularly with regard to infrastructure, freshwater availability, and long-term habitability.”

So while you’re congratulating yourself on dunking some imaginary alarmist who thinks the islands are physically vanishing, you’ve actually reinforced the very point you thought you were debunking:

Tuvalu’s core issue was never about the land visibly vanishing overnight. It’s about rising seas outpacing resilience - degrading water sources, overwhelming infrastructure, and forcing long-term questions about liveability. If you think a few extra metres of sandbank fixes that, you’ve badly misunderstood the stakes.

That’s what “sinking” means in this context. And waving around aerial photos from 1945 doesn’t change the fact that Tuvalu’s freshwater supply is under pressure, its roads and housing are vulnerable to storm surges, and relocation planning is already underway.

Your last line might as well be a summary of the thread:

“A completely different set of deniers this time.”

Indeed. Ones who read the title of the paper, but not the conclusion.