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.