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.