mhaze,

You say you're not building a case, just "bringing forth facts." But curiously, the facts you bring only ever serve to deflect or downplay, never to inform a coherent position.

And yes, I did claim you'd revert to predictable talking points - and you ticked off every one. That’s not clairvoyance, that’s pattern recognition.

Now, onto your latest evasions:

//Our descendants will be morons who can’t move a yard inland…//

A yard?

Tuvalu’s landmass is mostly narrow, low-lying strips. You can’t just “move inland” on an atoll. And what land there is must also support housing, infrastructure, agriculture, and freshwater access - all of which are already under pressure from rising seas and salinisation. This isn’t a game of hopscotch. The Dutch you cite have vast resources, favourable geography, and centuries of planning.

Tuvalu doesn’t.

//You suddenly don’t want to talk about it anymore…//

You mean the ill-governance line?

I addressed that before you even claimed I didn’t - and in the very post you’re replying to. I said it’s your go-to fallback once every other point runs out of steam. Which you’ve just confirmed again.

//I wasn’t building a case…//

Exactly. That’s the problem. You’re not engaging, you’re reacting. You reject. You deflect. But you never commit. That way, you can bounce between talking points without ever being pinned down.

It’s not honesty, it’s strategy.

As for your "50% isn’t overwhelming" claim - even if we grant the low-end estimate, you're still admitting human influence on a global sea-level threat. That alone makes your glib dismissals and "just build a wall" logic look absurdly unserious.

"You’ve now ticked off nearly every move I predicted..."

But you didn't predict anything did you?

"I did claim you'd revert to predictable talking points"

No you said you predicted it. Its pretty funny to watch you squirm here trying to get out of that gaff. I know its a minor point but its still funny so I think I'll continue to tug on that thread while-ever you refuse to own up.

"//You suddenly don’t want to talk about it anymore…//"
I was referring to you not wanting to talk about your claims that you predicted my points. Which you didn't and which you are now trying to get out of, which is awfully funny.

" you're still admitting human influence on a global sea-level threat. That alone makes your glib dismissals and "just build a wall" logic look absurdly unserious."

I never once disputed that there was some human influence. Never once. You just assume that would be my position and then demand that I retract claims I never made. Its almost your entire schtick these days. Yes, seas are rising. Yes some part of that is caused by man. Yes its a problem to be addressed. No its not a problem that is difficult to address. And again, if man's emissions aren't the entire cause of the rise, even if we were to magically have no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue and the problem would still be there to be resolved. But I think you won't understand that.

mhaze,

You’re still tugging on the “predict” bit because that’s all you’ve got - and you don't even really have that.

I didn’t misrepresent your behaviour, I described it. Accurately. The list wasn’t mystical foresight; it was pattern recognition. I said you’d cycle through the usual talking points, then showed exactly how you did.

That’s not squirming, that’s a mirror.

The real reason you’re clinging to this minor word choice is because the rest of your response offers… nothing.

//Yes, seas are rising. Yes some part of that is caused by man. Yes it’s a problem to be addressed.//

Congratulations - you’ve just contradicted the entire tone and thrust of your previous posts.

Because if you accept that sea-level rise is real, partly human-caused, and needs addressing… then why all the flippancy? Why the dismissals, deflections, and “just build a wall” quips?

You want to acknowledge the problem in theory, while treating it like a punchline in practice. That’s not consistency. It’s evasion.

Then comes this:

//Even if we magically had no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue…//

Which is both true and irrelevant.

The point isn’t whether nature contributes, it’s whether our actions are accelerating the threat. And they are. Which means reducing emissions is still necessary. That’s how causality works. But instead of grappling with that, you:

- nitpick wording,
- project arguments onto me I haven’t made,
- and now act like your vague, reactive stance was your position all along.

It wasn’t. It evolved under pressure - from "not a problem," to "not a CO2 problem," to "not an unmanageable problem," to "okay fine, but not my fault."

You call that “facts.” I call it goalpost relocation with a thesaurus. And all because you still can’t admit that “more land” doesn’t mean “more liveable.”

This just keeps getting worse and worse for you.

Still trying to find a way out of your self-made prediction pickle. You claimed to have predicted my points and when asked to provide even one example of predicting BEFORE I'd made my points you run and obfuscate.

Still funny.

"//Even if we magically had no emissions, the natural causes for the rise would continue…// Which is both true and irrelevant."

Yes its true. Miracle that you now get it. But its only irrelevant if you want to be. Seas are rising. They'll rise no matter what we do. Maybe not as fast but nonetheless. And therefore that will need to be addressed by the grandkids of our grandkids.

"It evolved under pressure - from "not a problem," to "not a CO2 problem," to "not an unmanageable problem," to "okay fine, but not my fault.""

You put all those things in quotes. But I didn't say them. Just making stuff up is so JD.

"you still can’t admit that “more land” doesn’t mean “more liveable.”"

Why do I have to admit that. I never denied it. Tuvalu is a sh!thole and has been for centuries. Its no less liveable now than it was in 1925 or 1825.

My original and remaining point was that its not sinking. That its got more land today than yesterday. You don't want that to be true but know it is. So you go off on these diversions and complain that I won't follow you down the garden path.

mhaze,

You’re still clinging to the word “predict” like the whole thread hinges on clairvoyance. But what I posted was a list of rhetorical moves you always fall back on, and you ran through all of them in your 10:56 AM post:

Prediction: Present threats? Dismissed as “overstated” or “bad governance”
You wrote: “...but saying their problems are all CO2 related is just more of the climate change scare-book.”

Prediction: Rising seas? “Well, sea levels have been rising since the Holocene.”
You wrote: “These atolls are always just a few feet above sea level... Picking a moment in time... isn’t valid or accurate.”

Prediction: Cite a study warning of habitability threats, then wave it away because the landmass increased
You wrote: “The increase in the land mass... isn’t fluke or a mere passing phase. It’s how the whole system works.”

Prediction: Downplay attribution of sea-level rise
You wrote: “The predictions of 50% could just as easily be correct. And that’s not overwhelming.”

Prediction: Frame high-end figures as alarmist
You wrote: “The committed warmist always sees the high-end prediction…”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371115

//Even if we had no emissions...//

Yes, I understand natural factors play a role. But we can’t influence those, we can influence ours. Saying “it would rise anyway” is like refusing to treat a fever because aging also raises body temperature. You’re dodging responsibility, not arguing causality.

//You put all those things in quotes. But I didn't say them.//

Thanks, Captain Obvious. Yes, I was paraphrasing. Do you need me to quote what you actually said there too?

//Why do I have to admit that? I never denied it.//

No, but you leaned on land accretion as a counter to sea-level rise - repeatedly - while ignoring that increased landmass does nothing for freshwater, infrastructure, or arable land. So yes, you did deny it.

And once again:

//My point is it’s not sinking.//

No, your point is that the landmass is growing. But “sinking” in this context refers to human habitability. This isn’t about sediment.

It’s about survival. And you keep missing that - or avoiding it.

Oh Dear, another raving thread !
The University of Auckland's Coastal Institute put this to bed a few
years back.
In a survey of Pacific Islands compared to aerial photographs from
1945 65% of islands were larger, 30% were the same and 5% were smaller.
A completely different set of deniers this time.