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.