Tuvalu,Niue,The Maldives, The Gilbert Islands, The Cocos...for these and many other island states climate warming is an impending disaster and the populations of these nations are all potential refugees...

These nations are going to be affected drastically. Their people will be displaced. Disease will wipe out their populations. Increased storm activity will wipe out their homes. These nations are fighting for their very existence, and for their children and children’s children.

Stop and think for a moment. Imagine that you, your spouse, your children and grandchildren are living on an island. Each year the water around your island home is rising higher. During storms your home has water running through it. Your cropland is affected by salt and is not growing enough to feed you, so each day the children are whimpering because they are hungry. Your drinking water is brackish…you have nowhere to go and no hope….

If you can imagine this…the level of despair and hopelessness, then do something to help. Start demanding that the Australian Government take action to REALLY help mitigate against global warming by acting to reduce atmospheric carbon to less than 350ppm instead of pissing around the edges of the fire.

Is that where that acrid smell is coming from?

HermanYutic,

Funny, I read a contribution from a person who cares....and you, a comment about the source of an acrid smell, Hmmm.

______________

dIBBSY1000,
Welcome to OLO(?)
Morally you are absolutely correct, sadly, I doubt you'll get much support from some on this site. Notwithstanding, the core of those who think before they type.

The west has, by and large, been conditioned to expect an overly affluent lifestyle and many will go to extraordinary means to avoid what is clear. This includes:

-Blame others for our excesses.

- denying that AGW exists despite the science.(BTW, I did note, that on a current topic that discussed the science none of the noisy 'sceptics' chimed in with alternative science. hmm )

- That there are winners and loser in the system, so long as they're not losers.

- claim their rights/comfort are more important than other's survival

- cultural chauvinism is more important that other's survival. (Fortress Australia).

- Politics trumps humanity and science.

- oh, did I mention, arguments by extreme and ad hominem attacks instead of a objective discussion.

Good luck anyway.

Yes, thank you for your post, and disregard the wally that posted under you.
I,ll try to be sort with this.

All mankind can do at this point in time, is too get ready to ride out the changes that are in no doubt coming with all the ferocity of nature can muster. The islands population is the number one concern with 83000 + people, and we all know the story that's connected with Easter island with the same problem. its the same thing again. Too many people and there is no band-aid solution no matter how much we think we can do.

Its every country for its self, and all around the world, all lands, its all hands on deck. Your leaders are going to have to make some hard decisions and the US/ British seem to of had an early interest in the development of your culture, so lets see if they turn there backs on you.

Good luck

We are all going to need it.

Dibbsy, I share your concern. We are indeed pissing around the edges of the fire. In fact, we’re exuding a few drops of urine several metres from the damn fire!

Whatever piss-weak agreement Copenhagen comes up with, or that the world comes up with post-Copenhagen, it is still going to be a watered-down urine dribble somewhere well-removed from the centre of the funeral pyre.

There is just no way in the world that we’re going to address this issue in a meaningful way.

Walk with me has got it; we need to get ready to ride out the changes. And that’s about the size of it.

I guess that there are four groups of people in this thing –

Outright denialists, skeptics, do-something-now realists, and no-nothing-coz-its-too-big-and-expend-your-energies-on-adapting-to-the-changes futilityists.

I’m totally torn between the last two.

I don’t want to be seen as a denialist supporter, but given that this issue is in reality too humungus for humanity to handle, it could be much better to just continue with business as usual, and thus with unfettered CO2 release, until it is reined in by nature.

If we slow down the release rate bit, which is all we could really hope to do with our best efforts, we could well be just making the problem worse. If there is a bigger but shorter CO2 peak event, then its effects could well be considerably less in the longer term.

dIBBYS1000,
Global warming has not been proven, in fact the temperature has dropped in the last 9-10 years. This is in spite of increased CO2 being emmited by humans. Science cannot explain why the decline, so the whole thing about human induced global warming is simply a theory and the computer models are shown to be very inaccurate.

Water finds a level, so why is not the seas rising everywhere? Measuring station in Tas has not recorded any appreciable difference, I have not noticed any difference in Sydney Harbour in the last 50 years, nor has friends at Lakes Entrance.

It has been reported that at least some of the Islands you mention are sinking because they are formed on less than solid foundation. This being so, I am sure that if they keep sinking international aid will come to assist to relocate the people. In the meantime why do they not take steps to build the islands up and plant vegetation to filter the sand and lessen the erosion from storms. We do that here where coasts are suject to erosion. It is called self help.

At Copenhagen, there was a young woman from Fiji that tearfully pleaded for the delegates to save her home. What rot, Fiji has mountains up to 1300m high. Another bloke supposedly from another island did a similar tearfull display. It turns out he lives in Queanbeyan, NSW and has done so for 10 years.

Why all the deceit and exageration? Why,if human induced global warming is so real, is it necessary to fudge the figures and 'hide the decline'.

In the last few days there has emerged questions about the temperature figures used from Alaska, Russia, Orlando, NZ and Darwin. I suspect we will see more figures questioned.

Someone else revealed that the New York Times has had stories about pending ice ages and warming, in the last hundred years, a dozen, or more, times, all supported by eminant scientists.

No wonder a bloke is sceptical!

Dear Banjo,

I have been taking an interest in this subject for more than 30 years and in that time have been subjected to rants and raves by people claiming that the world is in fact cooling etc. Each time when I have tracked down the source of the denialist 'science' it has been paid for by those who stand to benefit by the 'steady as she goes' continuing of polluting behaviours.

As for 'self-help' you obviously have not visited any of these islands. To build them up enough to counteract the rising sea waters would require the importation of millions of cubic tonnes of materials, something most of these nations are to poor to contemplate...and the ex-colonial masters who profiteered from the sweat and labour of these people are not interested in helping.

Re- Sydney harbour...deritus accumulates as wealthy societies keep building ever upwards...you'd be surprised if you went to find several prominant landmarks of a century ago to find that they are under water.

Feel free to be skeptical..its very fashionable at the moment. But 30+ years of study and observation has only convinced me that climate warming is actually happening faster than expected. Oh...about the last 10 years? They have gone on record by reliable scientists involved in climatology as the warmest ever experienced...and how about that new polar sea route that has opened up north of Canada?

well I am aware of far worse evils in the world even though my daintree donga [it's a house to me Stan] is 2 feet above high tide level.

Yesterday my brother sent me a DVD for Xmas by some Dutch twit called Andre Rieu [or something]. He said he is very popular with "older folk".

I made the mistake of playing it and getting "taken in" by the charisma of this prat [which is still lingering in the donga like a sickly green slime].

I have had 3 Valliums and a bottle of scotch but still feeling quite "queer", so anything the Pacific Ocean might do to me by way of drowning etc might be sweet relief

>>Start demanding that the Australian Government take action to REALLY help mitigate against global warming by acting to reduce atmospheric carbon to less than 350ppm instead of pissing around the edges of the fire.<<

Let's be realistic if not politically correct. In the context of the Pacific Islands, demanding that the Government does something about global warming is about as futile as demanding the atmosphere stops obeying the laws of physics. In fact, of those two things, the only one that REALLY matters now is how the physical systems behave.

Firstly, there are the political aspects which Copenhagen is showing to be very complicated and difficult. Secondly, even if the world does agree to completely stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere tomorrow, being a physical system, the atmosphere has so much momentum in it that it would take decades to change. It's like smoking: quitting the habit after a lifetime of puffing away doesn't stop the carcinogens from having a long-term effect on your health.

There may be a certain inevitability in what happens to the Pacific Islands no matter what anyone now does. Pacific Islanders could well be better to wean themselves off a dependence on living on their islands. Many of them have already come to countries like Australia and have made a new life for themselves as labourers etc.

IMO, this is where they would be better off putting their energies. Employ the precautionary principle and prepare to get off the sinking ship before it goes under: ie, leave while Tuvalu still is known by that name rather than Toodooloo. And countries like Australia should take their fair share of Pacific Island refugees if and when things get sufficiently bad on the islands.

This is the most realistic way of handling the situation that I can see. Banging the drum at Copenhagen is, at best, only solving another problem.

Well written, Banjo. You are 100% right.
Prepare yourself for the ad hominem attacks and labels that the 'believers' will now throw at you.

dIBBSY1000, just because someone dares to hold the opposite view from you doesn't make it ranting and raving. Then again, for a new poster you have joined the majority that make silly attacks on the opposition instead of debating the subject.
Welcome to OLO - you'll fit in nicely with the rest of your kind.

Banjo, Austin powerless

Wrong, wrong again, clearly you live in a cloistered world of denial, conspiracy theories and refusal to read/understand the science.

If you are going to make pronouncements like this, prove it with 'science', not some hasbeen's dubious readings of out of date data, or some unqualified journalist who wrote an argument based on opinion.

Both of you are entitled not to believe,(an opinion) but there is a big gap between that and provable scientific fact,(not opinion).
You come across like paranoid anti intellectualists. Banjo, I know that's not true of you.
Now how about addressing the topic.

dIBBSY1000 and Examinator,
It is you that have to prove that the sea is rising and AGW is to blame. I have not seen any evidence of that although i have seen reports that some islands are in fact sinking. I recall an ocean measuring station in Tasmania reporting no appreciable rise in sea levels. As i said earlier, AGW is not proven. There are more doubts now than ever.

I have read reports that the temp has leveled and fallen in the last 9-10 years. Even Tim Flannery agreed with this recently. One CRU email stated 'it was a travesty' that they could not show warming. Another stated that we must 'hide the decline'.

The teary speaker for the island of Tuvalu was Ian Fry, who ended his speech with "The fate of my country rests in your hands" Fry is a former greenpeace official who resides in Queanbeyan,NSW. According to the Aus, when his wife was asked if he had lived in Tuvalu, she would not comment.

If AGW was real and as obvious as the warmists reckon, there would not be any need for deceit, the fudging of data, non disclosure to other scientists or exageration of matters.

We have seen extradordinary claims of large sea level rises and pola bears drowning, to name just a couple. In fact i have been waiting for some warmist to claim Tiger Woods infidelity was a result of global warming.

I am with Banjo.
In an article in the Spectator Nils Axel Morner (Ex head of geodynamics at Stockholm University) wrote to the Maldives President for the third time. Morner said sea levels have not risen and are in fact lower than the 17th century!
Now you plonkers can believe some tear stained little prima donna begging for their life and land but not me. The Pacific Islands are riddled with corrupt leaders who steal our aid money and invest it in prime Australian real estate. The latest scam is to put on an actor who is playing a role or rather is playing a confidence trick on us.
New law, any Bank that takes money from a foreign politician has the money seized and has to pay a fine of the same amount. Wow Mr Mugabe would be pleased to lose his NT Cattle Station. To think that dog was lecturing us makes me sick and sick of you wallies!

Banjo,
enough of the nonsense . The proof has been given to all several times, it requires that you understand the science and how its gathered, processed etc. There has been several good sited that do exactly that.

You clearly don't understand the science, if you did you would not be swayed by non scientific arguments.
The flaws in the two Aussie Geologists arguments are well critiqued, referenced and widely condemned for being polemics rather than science. A bit like ' Chariots of the Gods' than a scientific analysis.

Would you go to a optometrist to have your teeth done, or a GP for brain surgery it maybe cheaper but.....! (they all study medicine to some level) So why believe a geologist whose focus is retrospective on a time frame in eons and eras. They can't prove that the current data doesn't show global warming, any more than a podiatrist can diagnose a brain tumour. (wrong end of the body.)

I put it to you that GW is undeniable and man is the smoking gun, it is there and provable from a plethora of disciplines (not just one).

As I said if you choose not to read/understand the science then that is your right but don't confuse opinion with fact or your denial with truth.

BTW the CRU 'scandal' is about some *data points* in one data set, hardly the basis for the IPPC's synthesis or dismissing the science.

Like the city island heat distortion argument.

BTW latest figures eliminate those data points. And new satellite techniques are more accurate anyway.

examinator, you fall into the usual 'debating' method of ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to have an opposite view from you.
So that makes me a denier, a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid anti intellectualist? What a pathetic 'argument' you make.
What do you think of Ian Fry? And, as Banjo already pointed out, even Tim Flannery, the government's pet high priest of the climate change religion, admits that the trend has fallen in recent years. Does that make him a 'denier, a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid anti intellectualist'?
Of course, if you only pay attention to the scientists and bureaucrats who support the GW theory and ignore the vast majority against, you will never know the truth.
The sky isn't falling.

great comeback from examinator....not!

Ran out of steam, eh?

And how about the way 'global warming' is affecting northern Europe at the moment? Hah!

Dear Banjo'

You said "I recall an ocean measuring station in Tasmania reporting no appreciable rise in sea levels". Wow, that is so scientific! As for Ian Fry...One person doing questionable things does not refute the argument.

Let me say this very clearly. I, and most people who have taken trouble to study GW over an appreciable period of time, do NOT claim that GW is all man's handiwork, never have. Only that the rampant production of greenhouse gasses...some in much smaller quantities than CO2, but with much bigger impacts, is exacerbating the process.

The world, as has been proven over millenia, is perfectly capable of adapting to climate warming and cooling if given enough time. Species adapt...those incapable of adapting die off and other species evolve.

The major problem at the moment is the speed at which the change is occuring...so fast we cannot adapt, and neither can the majority of mammalian species, nor the specialized developed-for-crop plants that feed you, me and most of mankind.

But if we don't want to become one of the extinct species, then we better find a way of slowing things down...right now.

As for the islands...what IS your argument RobP? Do you think that because it is difficult that we should not try? If we don't try, they will definitely go, if we do try, maybe we will suceed, maybe not...but also, maybe we will prevent the next most vulnerable from going under?!

Personally, I am not always convinced that mankind really is worth saving...but I think that it is entirely unjustifiable that it is those who have least contributed to the cause of the demise to be the first sacrificed.

If somewhere needs to be inundated and cleaned out, how about Sydney? Maybe New York...here's an almost certainty...Amsterdam?

One thing is certain...we CAN drown in our apathy.

>>As for the islands...what IS your argument RobP?<<

My argument is that pleas and best wishes aren't going to trump atmospheric physics. As people follow your advice and do their hard work thinking they're achieving outcome X, all they actually end up achieving, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, is something else completely.

Now that may be an outcome one is happy with, and it may not. What concerns me is that people are unnecessarily put through the wringer doing something that was always just a pipe dream. In that case, it's better to have put their energies somewhere else. In the case of the Pacific Islanders, their best course may well be to not waste their time making pleas to the international community but secure their own futures. Adapt rather than remonstrate. And do so before being mugged by reality. But, ultimately it's their decision.

Also, if society wants to save the planet, it should be done by those who are keen, ready and best suited for the job. Horses for courses. My argument hinges on which "we" you are referring to. The Royal "we" (ie everyone else being press-ganged into it) or those who are right and ripe for the job. If it's the latter, I've got no objection.