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.