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.