I'm tired of people resorting to ridicule & then quitting a thread because they don't have an answer.
C'mon people, reply with answers not excuses or silence. It will help towards a healthier discussion. Perhaps even offer a real solution.

That's all very well individual, but what if they don't have the answer?
Many people choose to leave a thread after they have been ridiculed, or shot down, for their opinions.

Once the same questions and the same silly or nasty answers keep coming up again and again in a thread, I get bored, and I'm out of there.

I prefer to have new threads or articles to read every day if possible, in order to keep my interest.
At present I am over the carbon tax issue, so I don't get too many other threads to read :(

Dear Suzieonline,
I agree with your post.....everybody is entitled to their opinions, every thing is 'right' and every thing is 'wrong', according to some of our ancient philosophers,as everyone's opinion is either right or wrong according to the person(s) point of view (I have just come back off a 400km drive, and I am too whacked to go find the name of the quoted philosopher), but everybody should be able to post their opinions without fear or favour, that is the democratic style of our country. There are a few too many (virtual) table thumpers on this site, and yes, they are a big turn-off.
Like your self, I don't have some (or most) of the answers demanded by some on-line challengers, lets face it even half of our politicians don't have the answers to the difficult problems facing them. So, again, I am with you, at least you have the intestinal fortitude to make your point.
Noisy Scrub Bird.

:That's all very well individual, but what if they don't have the answer?:

Funny as!

I am with suzeonline,& Noisy it is a bore. Tried getting everyone to post "their policys" just to make it a bit more interesting.

Nobody wants to even play Yes Minister.
I didnt even get a bite when i introduced the death penalty as a policy. They just want to snipe about carbon tax.
Two more years of this.

Bored

Our society is a little more important than just some snide remarks due to lack of an answer ? If anyone is wrong in your opinion then say so via a definite answer instead of leaving it open ended. That's just not intelligent

Dear Individual,

People leave threads for a variety of reasons - they may have the answer - but then after having voiced their opinion on several threads (over and over and over again) and argued with the same band of people - the temptation to resort to ridicule is far too great, so one decides to simply leave. Or, one is bored with discussing topics with people whose mind, logic, and one-eyed points of view simply makes the whole discourse so boringly comatose that one has to leave for the sake of one's sanity. But I digress. Enough said - that leaving is an option we all have - and if it was up to me - possibly some discussion are better not entered into at all with certain people - especially when the outcome is known in advance. That's something I'll try to remember in the future, before I post. Also, it's best to remember that not everyone views the forum as a means of "social and political debate."
Some view it as a "battle-field," while others use it for their own
"entertainment" (i.e. their aim is to be deliberately provocative -
to get a reaction out of people).

Having said all that - I suppose it is best not to over-react to postings directed at you. What looks like an insulting or mean message may only be a poor choice of phrasing and not meant the way
you perceived it. Best to be particularly polite when disagreeing with
someone. Whenever possible, acknowledge good points made and then
respectfully describe the areas where you disagree to produce the most
productive conversation.

Above all, never, every say anything like
the following:

"I'd like to see things from your point of view,
But I can't seem to get my head that far up
my ... - butt!"

Or

"I wouldn't say you're empty-headed but I bet
if I stood close enough to you I can hear the ocean."

Or

"You're the reason God invented the middle-finger!"

Best to leave things like that unsaid. Although you're
allowed to think them of course.

@individual:

That's all very well, but you're describing behaviour that you often engage in yourself. You frequently drop a cryptic one-liner into a discussion, which often has nothing to do with the thread topic. As for not answering questions, just this morning you hijacked another thread with a vague gripe about something irrelevant to the article under discussion, about which you still refuse to explain yourself. On top of that, you obviously hadn't even read the article that the thread that you derailed was about.

[That's one of my pet annoyances, actually - people who post comments about articles they haven't read].

It takes at least two for a conversation, so you're correct as far as that goes. As for the rest of your typically unspecified gripe, I'd like to see you practise what you seem to be preaching.

I forget I submit threads and write comments. I enjoy a yap but this joint isn't a focal point with the 60 hours a week I do at work.

Some people just irritate me or have in the past and with them I really don't care to entertain their random brain farts with my time. Generally those ones try to hijack a thread from the first comment and if they do that I won't go back.

I don't owe anyone an explanation or apology for these decisions. Neither does any one else.

I have noticed on this forum there is not a PM service.
Most forums have them - and people can sort out something that may have been a misunderstanding between them.
Would it not help to also have a PM on here does anybody feel?
Also I cant see any rules saying a person ""must"" respond-
Come on guys its just a forum where folk go to relax.
There are hundreds of thousands of forums pls lets all lighten up.

Lexi I would like to add is one of the few people i have had the pleasure to bump into that has always been polite funny.

She is the only poster "" i have ever felt like i would like to get to know a lot better- wondered where she lives and felt like say hey Lexi email me through my email address & come for a holiday some time
Life is short guys how about a few jokes now everybody.

morganzola,
just a minute there. I told of a paper which presented a distorted i.e. untrue situation. You chose to snipe back without considering that I might actually know the situation hence my claim. Why is that you don't take up the opportunity to discredit my post re the islands low land ? Is it just possible you think that I could be right ? That the papuans are exploited as very cheap labor ? That australian bureaucrats keep pouring millions into islands which the island people themselves claim are going under ? How about a comment with an idea of stopping the obvious waste of building on submerging land ? Please don't come back that these claims are baseless because they aren't.

@ individual:

Why don't you do it properly? Put a link to the article here and explain clearly and simply where you think that it's incorrect, and why you think so. Then people can either agree or disagree with you and/or it and explain why. If we all agree to respect each other and each other's right to put their points of view, then we have the makings of a debate.

That would be a much more productive way of stimulating constructive discussion than hijacking another thread and announcing that you'd like to give some academic a "clip behind the ear" because you didn't agree with them, don't you think?

Hell hath no fury like a HKM scorned.
Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 3 July 2011 9:59:23 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4544&page=0
Morgan

Given this thread is headed answer the question pls -
I would say it is covered to include my question
to you under its terms of reference.

Can you explain your comment above?
The thread was a pretty normal topic. It was in the media at the time but NO mention of HKM- pls explain yourself.

I wasn't going to bother but reading your comments t changed my mind. Also why since i joined OLO you straight away attacked me.

What is it you think"you know. Or what do you wish to know?
Ask anything you wish & here is a little starter.

Yes people were very upset to know Patel was doing accreditation for ritual slaughter without their knowledge.Especially given their were docs signed - but i wont go into that here.
They were less impressed seeing him on TV asking for 2 mill in their name from the PM. They not support the ritual slaughters and wants it banned. RSPCA want it banned & the last time i looked AA your lot want it banned-


Now hes a little hint for your lot. ALL accreditation's including & especially Indonesia are done by bribes. Does AQIS know- Of COURSE they know but are too gutless to do anything about it.

So the moral of the story is whoever does the accreditation's are very important for the animals sake. Those Animals in Indonesia would have been stunned IF the right accreditation authority had been involved. Hense the interest.
There are several accreditation authority's that insist on animals being stunned first. As you know there are also many who dont.
I feel this is the area in which the kinder authorities need all the support they can get. Hopefully in time they will teach the others. We all do what we can in our own ways but i just dont understand the nasty attacks at genuine animals lovers from so called other animal lover groups.

@Kerryanne:

Despite the fact that you're on my 'ignore' list, I'll answer your question because you asked it politely. My admitted one-liner was prompted by your angry rants personally directed at Ikebal Patel over his apparent support for Sharia law. In retrospect, I agree that my comment was unhelpful and I withdraw it.

Having said that, I haven't "gone for you" at all - quite the reverse, in fact. Indeed, I'm trying very hard to ignore you, a personal policy to which I shall now return.

Ciao :)

morganzola,
there are no links. you know full well that incompetence & blatant exploitation aren't regularly documented. Do think it morally right that people get exploited for $ 5 /hr ? Do you think it right to spend literally millions on infrastructure on an island which is constantly in the news about getting flooded & is in danger from rising sea level ?

@ individual:

Of course there's a link to the article you're concerned with - how do you think I read it online? Also, of course I don't support exploitation of anybody, nor wasteful expenditure. However, I know very little about the situation that has upset you to the point that you proclaim publicly that you intend to give an academic a "clip under the ear". And I'm unlikely to know more, given that getting you to post the necessary information is akin to extracting teeth.

I really don't understand why you won't post the background to your latest gripe, but I think it's quite unreasonable for you to bang on about people not answering questions, when you can't be bothered framing them in a way that allows people to answer them.

This is a rant thread. Graham gave this place a certain amount of freedom to self police because we whinged and whinged about a perceived 'dictatorship' - for the want of a better description - over what we contribute. How about you guys 'self police' yourselves.

This thread is pointless and will damage the freedoms we've managed to gain here if it goes on much further.

Lexi

Enjoyed your post very much - especially considering that this thread appears to be about nothing - like a certain comedy series, except "Seinfeld" was entertaining.

One I'd like to add to your list of "stuff we think but don't post" is:

"I'm not mean, you're just stupid."

But I would never post that especially on a topic raised by Individual, because we know he practices what he is preaching here, don't we?

(Ending with a question, geddit?)

*Despite the fact that you're on my 'ignore' list,*
Records show otherwise but wont drag out the posts.

*your angry rants personally directed at*
Thats your assumption - fact is it was based on the article + in support another in Muslim times.
I think its fair to say nobody supports ritual slaughter- its cruel. Nor will he be a ongoing problem in the bigger picture.
Personally speaking I was shocked and saddened- but after saying that afic at least was the first Congress to pass a motion in Congress to ban live exports. Nobody can ever take that away from him.

Approving ritual slaughter and fighting with RSPCA over it to me is unacceptable as it is to RSPCA.

As ""you raised HKM it may assist if you & yours actually *knew what it was- instead of assuming. Its based on the submission to the Bill in 2005.

1 It is to replace live with local pre stunned.

2 To allocate AA WSPCA Animal Angles PAACT & others with authority to police not only the abattoirs but the entire process- transport.

3 To supply funding for that.

4 The farms are to be free range accredited to give the farmers the extra % which otherwise goes to only Islamic councils.

5 This % is we hope going to be helpful in competing as an intensive to compete with the live trade.

6 Each will have a worm farm & Halal vegetable farm and small goods..

7 In years to come those Halal veggie farms will yield a bigger return than meat-imop which can be expanded to growers.

What we have atm is a trade that is dependent on one supplier live exports. hkm is to create another supply chain which is looking quite good. There is nothing wrong with a person bar their intentions. If the intentions of that person are good- so is the person.
So pls by all means feel free to ignore me. I have only responded when you addressed me .
Have a nice day

individual,

While i agree there is no hard set rule for anybody to be forced to respond to other comments- I would like to point out to your politeness must be a two ways street.
You left a comment to me. I spent a good deal of time replying as to why I would not vote for Tony Abbott. You then simply did not reply.

Thats ok- but you didnt see me rushing off to open a thread because individual didnt respond to me. Thats just life i guess.
For me i always try to respond but i have a farm and several other interests and work to do. I mostly come here for a break.

Many times I read people comments after hours- have a smile to myself but do not comment . Its everybodys choice how little or how much they wish to contribute.

Posting on this forum I have found is surprisingly addictive but we all have to juggle our time. If there were hard set rules that people had to reply to everybody i dont think there would be so many users. People love the freedom to come and go.

So as I assume"" you had no intentions to be rude to me - lets give others the same benefit of the doubt shall we.
No pun intended but tbo your behaving a bit like Tony Abbott.

I am not having a go at you but you did open this thread & thats is actually what you did to me dear.

Ok well cheers- enjoy the rest of your day.

C%http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/03-CIndigenous/$File/03-C%20Indigenous.pdf

Look up Promoting autonomous and anticipatory adaptation.

What on earth is that sensless rambling all about ? The sea level is rising, what are we supposed to do ? Provide stilts for everything & everyone ? C'mon. every mutt & his dog has had global warming & rising sea level stuffed down their thoats. Yet here's another expert raving on about all sorts of cooperation with indigenous & their knowledge etc etc.
As if that can stop the sea closing in on a low lying island. If the sea is indeed rising then logically there's only one option. Move. I have spoken with people who have been up there in the late 60's when the tides were much higher than nowadays & yet the experts say the sea level is rising. How on earth can these experts say it's rising when it was higher 50 years ago ? If it is indeed rising then why are we listening to all this crap about more funding to combat rising sea level ? Spend the money on stilts & sandbags ? Get a brain !

Dear Individual,

Words like, "Get a Brain!" do not endear you to anyone and they certainly don't encourage discussion.
Apart from being rude and contemptuous
that sort of language tends to indicate that you
don't really want to hear the opinions of others
because you've
already made up your own mind on the subject.
Then you've got the
cheek to ask why people leave.
Perhaps you should take your own
advice.

Lexi,
If you read carefully the phrase get a brain is aimed at the experts not any posters on OLO.
I haven't made up my mind on the subject, I don't have to , I know too many of these experts & how their ideas ruin our working day.
People only leave when they have no argument, when they realise that they're dealing with people on the ground not just some theorist on a 2-day jaunt.
Remember we're all paying for such wastage.

individual,

Like morganzola and Lexi, I'm a little surprised to find that you're the author of this thread moralising on other poster's shortcomings. You seem quite adept at run-by invective yourself.

Try this on for size:

"noisy
you're talking via the wrong end of your digestive system."

It fits!

Suzieonline, you are thinking of Parmenides.

*What on earth is that sensless rambling all about ?*
individual

Allow me to enlighten you and perhaps we are all capable to learn.

If for eg- the surf life savers & state Governments had the brains to have trained - learnt- be taught about the ocean from our aboriginal people beaches would have been a hell of a lot safer.

50 60 70 years ago when the aboriginal people were used more for spotters for fishermen & holiday makers were coming the councils fishermen etc used to also pay them to judge the waters. The same flags were used butt with one difference. About every two hours even calm surfs change. They can see a rip before its there. Predict where to flags should be moved to. Up and down those flags would go from one hole to another. At times they were just moved 20 meters- other times 20 30 40 etc.

Living at one property i nagged the council for years to get some of these old timers and LEARN. Watching people being pulled up of the water + a few deaths while they leave the flags in the same place-

If anybody would know about tides changes animals plants its them
Trouble is our idiot pen pushers wont listen and say things like=

*What on earth is that sensless rambling all about ?*

Kerryanne,
You're right that the people have known the tidal factors for a long time & that is what my rambling is all about. We have so many people who know yet we consult with ignorant academic experts at great cost to everyone & in many instances at an even greater social cost to society. Just the one example of rising sea level & low islands. Does it really require spending millions of dollars to find out that the only alternative is to move off such an island ?
They had that sense 70 years ago for crying out loud. Yet despite the fact that people left so long ago our bureaucrats see it fit to keep pouring millions into those places. Like one bureaucrat said to me recently, I'll be retired before the sea level rises. That's what I am rambling on about, that selfish, idiotic attitude. This attitude is prevalent throughout our massively oversized bureaucracy. The saddest part is that the main culprit for this situation, the ALP is still getting support for this insanity.
This is only a tiny example, just think back of pink bats, school halls, the floods etc etc. Add to the list at your leasure. Do we really want more of this ? Really ? Or ist time to start thinking of of others not on the bandwagon but fellow citizens nevertheless who deserve better. Don't come back & say I'm against all academics & bureaucrats. I'm not. I'm only against the countless incompetent hangers-on ones.

Dear Individual,

Obviously the Opposition leader has decided to maximise his advantage on "economic management" by invoking the "Howard Golden Age," and avoid commiting himself to anything substantive on economic policy in the here and now. As a political tactic it's clearly designed to keep the focus on the government and to change the subject without addressing the questions posed about savings and of course to maintain the constant election freenzy Mr Abbott likes to conjure up. All smoke and mirrors really.

The politicians of both the Coalition and the ALP have performed well at what they've set out to do. Both need to hold the centre, for without middle Australia, each is done for. Both are redistributive parties. The Coalition wants the growing inequality of income, wealth and power distribution to keep going. The ALP want to tone it down a bit. The Coalition is made up of AGW denialists and hence the home insulation scheme to them was a total waste of money. The ALP endorses AGW and its home insulation scheme was by and large successful but it was naively managed and rorted to buggery by the sort of "entrepreneurial" cowboys who are Abbott's natural constituency.

Human activities, the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are triggering changes in the global climate. We may not see some of those changes in our lifetime - but that's no excuse to do nothing about it for future generations and this planet. Taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. It's the right thing for our economy, for jobs, and for the environment. Not only is putting a price on pollution critically important to our children's future - it's about ensuring a healthy environment to live in and new high skill jobs for their work. You don't have to believe in any of this but please at least respect the opinions of those who don't agree with
you.

*Don't come back & say I'm against all academics & bureaucrats. I'm not. I'm only against the countless incompetent hangers-on ones.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 6:31:41 AM*

Dear Individual

o I wont come back and say that. What I will say is give me the chance to walk in there and toss 99% of them out and I would be there in a heart beat. I agree with you 100% about the waste. Its worse than people know. At least even if it costs millions again some are at last taking the advise of the elders- that was my point.

We are so arrogant. I had the privilege of learning as a kid how they read the tides- well seeing it first hand. I have forgotten a lot but i am still see danger before people drown. I got so angry one-day watching these idiots with there flags up a few meters from the resorts pulling people out of the surf IDIOTS.
If they have moved the flags 50 meters there was no rips.
Got into a argument- called the council- got the head guy ringing me saying they were experts. Told him to get his/ their life savers up north and LEARN from the older aboriginals before it was too late.
They still have the flags in the same place each day- outside the resorts - never move them
Typical of Councils and Government.
So we agree on Howard and ALP neither being the answer. That is why I posted that link
Did you read it?
Cheer

So, let's see if we can work the question/s to which individual wants answers, on the basis of the brief literature review and anecdotal evidence available.

Firstly, individual is aware of anecdotal evidence of inundation 70 years ago leading to a mass exodus of government officials and residents from an unnamed island community in the Torres Strait. According to him, presumably government bureaucrats authorised rebuilding on the same site, despite being aware that it is below recorded maximum high tide.

Alternatively, it might be sea level rising due to AGW, so the bureaucrats are stupid to rebuild anywhere on the island/s and should just abandon them.

It seems to me that there's a couple of questions that emanate from that brief summary that individual needs to answer before we can proceed sensibly, rather than along the generalised bureaucrat and academic bashing track that some would like to take us.

Firstly, which island is it that he's talking about, or is it some or all of them?

Secondly, if it's a general trend across the Torres Strait Islands, wouldn't that be a very strong indicator of sea level rise as predicted by AGW models?

Thirdly, if all of that's true, has he thought about the implications of what he's suggesting? How would he suggest going about depriving people of their land and communities, and where does he think they might go? What about the implications for all low-lying coastal communities in Australia?

Wouldn't it be sensible to start planning for it, based on the best available evidence?

Once we get some constructive answers to those questions, then we can start looking for who to blame, IMHO.

Morganzola,
There are some things you need to give some thought up front. When sea level rises it doesn't rise in some places & not others. The only other cause being subsiding land which is possibly due the collapse of cavities created by removing natural gas & oil. Then there is tectonic shifting of plates which is unlikely caused by man.
There was a mass evacuation from Saibai Island in 1947 due to flooding. You have to expect that in a mangrove swamp. 150 people may not sound like a mass but when the population is 170-200 then it is a mass. Bureaucrats only ever stayed there not resided.
Your'e partly right about the bureaucrats but corruption is also involved. Sea levels haven't reached the heights in recent years that were reached 50-70 years ago so I'd guess sea level is not rising. Depriving people of land is not an option if the sea level is rising, there simply is no choice. Yes, start planning for a possible rise in sea level by cutting back/ceasing to build on coastal low land. Lastly, from personal experience I'd also suggest that experts who do not reside in an area should not be the planners for that area. The past has shown that most stuff-ups in planning are due to consultants who have no other interest than making a quick buck at the expense of the communities they leave in their incompetent wake.

@ individual:

Excellent, now we're getting somewhere. However, it seems to me that much of perceived bureaucratic incompetence depends on whether or not sea levels are actually rising. Indeed, it's possible that both scenarios are true - the 1947 event could have been a once-in-1000 years storm surge, and meanwhile the overall sea levels in the Torres Strait have been slowly and steadily increasing, which would explain other phenomena like salt water pollution of freshwater wells that have been there for centuries, or millennia in some cases.

It seems to me that it doesn't really matter to the affected TSI people what the cause of inundation is really. Clearly, continually rebuilding on land that is now known to be flood-prone is just stupid, and if there's corruption involved that must be brought to light and acted upon. I imagine that the land in question is owned by some family under Native Title, in which case the owners would be understandably reluctant to abandon land that has only recently returned. If it is alienated Crown land those issues obviously wouldn't apply.

The other major problem with abandonment and relocation is that of where to relocate the displaced Islanders. Times have changed since the founding of Bamaga - I imagine that any contiguous coastal land on the mainland would be subject to Native Title or be already owned as leasehold. Also, if as you say the sea level rises are generalised, what about mainland coastal communities that will also be inundated?

Clearly, it's going to be something of a nightmare, and I suppose it's good that some planning is taking place. As I said, I caught a news report the other day that featured the Mayor pleading for assistance - but unfortunately I didn't pay close enough attention. Is your anger directed at something to do with that?

morganzola,
there are at least 6 large-ish uninhabited island plus some of the really big islands only have populations of no more than 100-150. Literally heaps of available land for internal refugees. Moving to another island shouldn't really pose a major problem as all inhabitants claim to identify as one people.
You say rising sea level in Torres Strait. The sea must be rising worldwide then or Torres Strait is subsiding. I have spoken to many people & none believe the sea level is any higher now than 50 years ago. On the contrary. I am aware though of a handful of sea level rising bleaters who think another great heap of money from the australian tax payers will solve that problem. As money is rather thin physically it will need an awful lot to raise the islands accordingly.
btw. looking at the pic of the sand-bagged grave the sea is only rising on one side.

morganzola,
After reading this correct description do you still think rising sea level is the cause or will you subscribe to the more realistic view that this so-called island is really not suitable for any more infrastructure investment.

Description:
Saibai is approximately 20km long by 6km wide. The island was formed from alluvial sediment, built up over time from neighbouring Papua New Guinea’s vast river systems, which are a mere 5kms to the north.

At an average of one metre above sea level, the island is a mixture of mangrove fringe, flood plain and brackish swamps. It is also subject to flooding and rising sea levels. The wet season deposits approximately 2 metres of rain, yet in comparison, the dry season leaves the island short of water.

There are strong links with the Bamaga community on Cape York as many Saibai Islanders migrated there following floods in the 1950’s.

@ individual:

I must say Saibai sounds like a quite horrible place to live, and on the face of it abandonment looks like the most rational strategy. However, it's not quite as simple as that, as I'm sure you well know. Given the claims that the recent inundations are a product of sea level rise due to AGW, whatever action is taken is likely to be seen as something of a precedent with respect to rising sea levels on the mainland. From your description, it seems likely to me that Saibai is subsiding ( for which you haven't shown any evidence) or that sea levels are rising (which Is predicted by AGW models).

You say there are plenty of suitable uninhabited islands. Why are they uninhabited - could it be that there is insufficient fresh water, or that the soils are too poor for horticulture? Are they currently owned by the Crown or is there some form of Native Title over them? The answers to these questions are important, because you can't can't just give land away if it's already owned.

You say "Moving to another island shouldn't really pose a major problem as all inhabitants claim to identify as one people", but that doesn't take into account the very strong clan affiliation that people have, which is inextricably linked with land ownership. Remember Mabo?

Further south, coastal councils are starting to consider 'retreat' strategies to adapt to rising sea levels, all of which are contentious. Imagine if you owned waterfront land (which can be extremely valuable), but half of it was washed away in the last storm, including your house. Who is responsible for your loss? Do you have a legitimate case for compensation, or is it 'tough tithes' for you?

Questions, questions, eh? How about you answer those ones before we generate some more?

Individual, you say:

>> There are some things you need to give some thought up front. When sea level rises it doesn't rise in some places & not others. The only other cause being subsiding land which is possibly due the collapse of cavities created by removing natural gas & oil. Then there is tectonic shifting of plates which is unlikely caused by man ... <<

and so on.

You want answers? May I suggest you give some thought up front too.

Perhaps you should look at this site:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaLevel

Sea levels do rise in some places and recede in others, at the same time, depending on numerous factors. However, global mean sea level is rising, as the explanations, graphs and animations show - move the pointer from 1993 to 2009.

bonmot,
cheers for that, very interesting indeed. Can't argue with a billions of dollars worth of budget.
Nevertheless the graph shows a rise of three inches in our region which still is so minute & could possibly have a connection with the many quakes we had in the region lately. Have any measurements been taken to check if it's not the land subsiding ? if a rise of three inches is alarming then we'd really need to look at relocation more seriously. Those who argue that the Governments aren't doing anything clearly need to either put up a plan or quietly move into a higher corner. No amount of funding will prevent a swamp being swamped.

bonmot,
I forgot to ask, is there any data which shows the seal level rise in the 50's-60's ? It must have been higher because we haven't had flooding like in those times in recent decades. I would not ay all be surprised to learn that Cairns is actually subsiding. Just think, Cairns is built on sand & mangrove swamp. Considering the weight of the city it wouldn't be that unreasonable to think so, or would it ?

No probs Individual,

@” Can't argue with a billions of dollars worth of budget”.

Precisely. But many do. Moreover, some naysayers want to withdraw funding and terminate some very important programs that will determine whether AGW is significant or just the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on man-kind.

If human activity has played a significant role (I think it has), I would like humanity to do whatever it takes to adapt to the inevitable changes that we will have to live with … AND try to avert or minimise behaviours that would exacerbate the situation, imho.

@ Nevertheless the graph shows a rise of three inches in our region which still is so minute & could possibly have a connection with the many quakes we had in the region lately.

Which graph indy? The first sea level graph shows about 200 mm (8 inches) from 1870 to 2000 from coastal tide gauges all over the world – not our region.

The second graph does show about 3 inches, but only since 1993 when the satellites first started monitoring. This graph also shows global mean sea level, not regional.

If you want to get an idea of regional sea level rise, you have to look at the coloured time series animation on the right. See the white and red bits? You’re looking at up to 5 inches near NE Qld since 1993.

Sure, there are uncertainties (in all measurements) and resolution is not perfect - but it's getting better all the time.

Look, you said “there are some things you need to give some thought (to) up front”. I assume you also mean not making up guff along the way, or not implying some very unlikely scenarios – but this is exactly what you are doing now.

Give some more thought to these starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_oceanography

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

In other words indy, sea level change due to recent earthquakes is negligible.

Yes indy, people do measure land subsidence – those scientists study the stuff.

cont'd

Indy

Next you talk about the “weight of Cairns”. Mass does effect the dynamics, indy – but the weight of Cairns? If you want to talk about the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, sure – but please, give some thought or do some serious homework before you post. You are only confusing yourself and others.

Re: data from 50’s – 60’s? Have a good look at this web-site and the embedded links. Click the + signs.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html

This is also a good site, but more global and US:

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

Hope that helps

morganzola,
Saibai is commonly referred to as Club Mud which gets flooded at every King tide since the very first recordings, nothing unusual about that at all. The very strong Clan affiliation you refer to is really just a nicer word than prejudice & unwilling to help others in need. Councils are starting to consider strategies, good. Why can't we have strategies for up there ? Most homes in danger on the mainland are homes for which the owners have worked for & paid for unlike on Saibai, compensation therefore would be another better home provided on higher ground.

bonmot,
I went by the graph with the blue,yellow, red which went to 100 mm.
Human activity has the most impact no question. As for Greenland I'm led to belive it is on solid ground unlike our coastal settlements. A bit like Sydney. As far as I know Sydney has no rising sea level problems apart from people building right at sea level.
Sea level rising 3 mm/year lately that's 1 foot higher than now in 100 years. Hm yes, that will be a problem if we sit idle & don't make a move to higher ground. The Carbon Tax will certainly be of no use, better using the money to move & build on higher ground.

You shouldn't be too worried too much about "our coastal settlements" Indy - we (Oz) will be generally ok.

Sure, it will be an inconvenience to some - but we can adapt ... provided we start now. Afterall, adaptation will take time - town planning, infrastructure, inconvenience, etc. You can't move a nation's 'food bowl' or underground transport system overnight.

No Indy, I am talking about those 60 million people that will be seriously impacted by only that miniscule 59 mm (+/- due to uncertainty) sea level rise by 2100 projected only 5 years ago.

Yet you seem not to have comprehended 'global average'. Some areas will rise more, some less - look at the animation again.

In fact, the projections are higher now Indy - 80 cm by 2100 (120 cm if you add king tides and storm surges) - as latest research suggests, the rate will get higher - as it has been. Look at the rates in the graphs again. See the increasing rates indy?

And Indy, we just can't talk about sea level rise finishing at 2100. It will continue to rise after 2100.

You know Indy, people living in their home environment that is less than 18 inches above the now mean global sea level will be in deep "crap", to use 'the' common vernacular. If people think Australia should be worried about boat refugees now, they're living on another planet.

Indy, why else do you think the United Nations Security Council and all international security forces are concerned about global warming - not just sea level rise? Think of energy supply, food resources, water resources, national and international security, etc.

Greenland, solid ground? Have you actually read the links. Take away its ice sheet and what do you think will happen? No, I'm not just talking about sea level rise due to that - which would be catastrophic.

Carbon tax? Come on Indy, everybody should expect that a good proportion of that should be used for implementing alternatives to fossil fuels (heard of peak oil or coal?) and adapting as you say.

@ individual:

So we're agreed that the appropriate authorities should be developing strategies to adapt to sea level rises, regardless of the cause? It seems to me that the literature review that got you all hot under the collar at the beginning of this discussion is an essential part of the process. It certainly goes nowhere near making any recommendations, rather it is a brief summary of some relevant information.

The solution is apparently quite simple, according to you - simply remove the Saibai Islanders from the ancestral land from which they derive a large part of their identity, and to which they've only recently regained Native Title. Despite your astonishing insensitivity to these people's culture, surely even you must be aware of the political minefield that such a proposal would entail?

That story has quite a way to go, I suspect - but at least we can agree that we are likely to see increasing problems with inundation and social dislocation in the Torres Strait Islands in the near future, and that the situation may require some radical solutions.

bonmot,
So finally we all appear to come to the conclusion/common view that we can't stop global warming/rising sea level. That was exactly the gist of my argument.
I have long advocated allocating resources for this very scenario in lieu of sending money. My argument is that no tax will stop global warming but physically moving people & infrastructure will help towards future generations' strategies. I'm convinced future generations have only two options, get smarter than we are or go under.

morganzola,
before you get all upset about my (in your opinion only) insensitivity may I suggest you get to know these people & their culture. The social dislocation you refer to would merely be a repeat of what happened in the past 150 years over which the mainly melanesian south pacific occupiers colonised the Torres Strait. Only this time it would be the descendants of the colonisers having to move themselves.

Indy,

If you understand the enhanced green-house effect you would know that the planet is already committed to a warming - it's in the 'pipeline'.

What most people don't seem to understand is that we have the capacity to limit that warming to levels that we can adapt to.

We have been strongly urged to limit the warming to 2 degrees centigrade (global mean) by 2100.

We have been strongly advised on ways and means to do that - and only fools think it will not cost money.

But the costs of not doing something early will only cost a lot more later - particularly if the global mean temperature exceeds 2 degrees C.

That money has to come from somewhere, but it appears we are a greedy and selfish lot.

Tax dollars will help to both adapt (e.g. infrastructure for transport) and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels (e.g. alternative energy resources).

The way the dissenters would have it, we can't do anything about our future so let the future take care of itself - or go under.

I would suggest we can do something about it, if we really want to - most people don't.

Sadly, most people have been 'dumbed-down' by those who want to gain/maintain power and control.

Interesting thread indy, thanks.

@individual:

As it happens, over the years I've met quite a few TSI people and their families, some of whom originated in Saibai. That's why I know that there'll be a bit more to it than simply removing the Saibai Islanders and establishing them somewhere else. Interesting that you claim that the colonisers were Melanesians - I've always understood that the colonising power was Britain prior to Australian Federation, after which the region has been part of Queensland.

Or are you referring to the London Missionary Society, who did indeed employ Melanesian missionaries to spread their religion in the first concerted effort by European interests to destroy the religious aspects of Island culture? Why do you seek to elide from your scenario any positive comment about the landowners who are the subject of your strategies? While it's clear that you're contemptuous of the Islanders who are losing their homes - likely because of AGW that they had no part in creating - why do you dismiss their side to the situation?

It's becoming clearer to me that your problem with the involvement of "academics" in developing AGW amelioration strategies is that they are open to information from a range of sources, not just that which supports your preference - from which, so far, the local Indigenous perspective is entirely absent.

So many questions... I'll be interested in your answers. Do you still want to give the author of then lit review a "clip behind the ear" for including sources of which you don't approve?

morganzola,
I have met quite a few people sharing your mentality of twisting everything possible to be twisted into something that someone who is non-indigenous to these shores is remarking on.
Be it in favour of indigenous or in favour of curbing academic/bureaucrat incompetence/indifference to wasting/misappropriating hard earned tax payers' contribution. In fact, anything positive for society is in stark contrast to your mentality.
Back to your question. I'm referring to the descendants of the beche-de-mer fishermen & pearl shell fishers who in general came mainly from Samoa. They have successfully taken over the Torres Strait & since that takeover they have become the proud Torres Strait Islanders of new. I am not contemptuous, that is simply your racist attitude emerging whenever you get cornered. I am contemptuous of people who lack integrity yet accuse others of being so.
If you bothered to really find out for sure about the reality then you would be just as disillusioned as so many I speak with about the attitude of these people towards anyone not from there, even their closest neighbours are treated with contempt. They actually want the Australian Government to stop providing medical assistance to people in the western PNG province, a mere 4 km away.
Just google Torres News & other media. Google Warren Entsch's reply to the Mayor's call to stop assistance.
morganzola,
I am not here to run people down although your perverse attitude would like to see me do that, Sorry, can't do. Why don't you speak with people who go there to help the Island & ask them how much assistance they get & how much effort the people themselves are putting in. Don't bother to reply until you've done that.
Subject closed. Thank you for participating.

@ individual:

As I suspected, we've reached the point where it's clear that it's not so much about people not answering questions, as it is about you not liking (or perhaps not understanding) the answers your overly simplistic questions elicit.

Despite the fact that you now want to take your bat and ball and go home, I'm grateful to you for raising a topic that actually has very broad ramifications for adaptation to rising sea levels. While the degree of sea level rise and its effects on coastal-dwelling peoples will obviously vary from place to place, the questions of relocation and retreat are very likely to raise all kinds of thorny questions of the kind that you now apparently wish to avoid.

In contemporary Australia, neither State nor Federal governments can simply move entire communities from land that they own without compensation. Imagine if the house you own in Cairns is declared to be uninhabitable due to sea level rise - would you willingly cede title to land that you own in order to go... where? Even if you do, who pays?

I understand that there are something like 15 clans with well-documented claims to Native Title on Saibai. Your use of the term 'colonisation' to describe the traditional absorption of immigrants, typically by marriage, is mischievous. The only colonial power in the area in recorded history was that of Britain, and the London Missionary Society is well-documented as its representative agency for assimilation on the ground, employing Melanesian preachers from Fiji.

I think your story about Samoan fishermen probably has a kernel of truth to it (as do many myths that colonisers tell about the colonised) but immigration by marriage in no way constitutes colonisation under any definition of which I'm aware. One hint as to the apocryphal nature of your story is your description of Samoans as "Melanesian" - under the classificatory system used by anthropologists during the colonial period, Samoans were typically described as "Polynesian".

As usual, you seek to delegitimise Indigenous people and culture. Little wonder you don't like the answers you get to your "questions".

morganzola,
Obviously you're not aware of the term clan in that area otherwise you wouldn't use the term. 15 clans divide into a population of 200 makes the term no more than the meaning of family.
You call an influx of polynesians/melanesians who literally takes over within two generations ok but when australians pour millions of dollars into a swamp than that you call that mischievous. My house in Cairns ( I wished I could afford one) goes under than I lose. A house on Saibai goes under the australian taxpayer loses twice. First the house then building another one somewhere else including the cost of moving the occupant.
The myths as you call them aren't myths , they're an inconvenient truth being swept under the carpet by those who want to continue the money trail at the expense of the australian taxpayer. Telling a fact is only delegitimising people & culture to those who want to the wool over the taxpayers' eyes to stay on.
I'm asking again now to look up Saibai on Wikipedia & tell us if you still think it ok to keep pouring millions into that obviously subsiding island.

@ individual:

I thought you said the subject is closed for you.

Oh well, since you're back - obviously I don't approve of wasting taxpayers' money.

However, you haven't established that the island is subsiding. All you've done is advanced a hypothesis that it is, but you haven't backed it up with any evidence.

While I was already quite familiar with the culture, history and geography of Saibai, as part of our discussion I had already consulted the very brief entry on it in Wikipedia. It doesn't provide much information, but one thing I did notice is that it says that most of the island is owned under Native Title.

As I've suggested previously, therein is a legal and political can of worms. What strategies do you envisage to enable the government to remove these people from their land? Where do you propose sending them, and under what powers can the government take someone's land for the purpose of giving it to someone else?

These aren't hypothetical problems. If sea levels are rising as they appear to be, this kind of issue could be repeated all around the Australian coastline.

Now I've asked a couple of very relevant, practical questions in relation to your topic, once we finally established what it was. Will you answer them? I'd suggest that you might have to go beyond Wikipedia and hearsay to be able to provide sensible answers.

morganzola,
you're again avoiding to answer.
On one hand you say I haven't established that the island is subsiding yet then you say the sea level is appearing to rise.
Do you still think it right to pour more taxpayer money into this island ? That is what I would like to to answer on.
Land subsiding or sea level rising, the end result is the same. The island will be flooded. What do you suggest as an alternative ?
Ah, let me guess. Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax will prevent all this, eh ?

@ individual:

This is getting silly. Please stop pretending that you're unaware of the enormous political problems associated with removing people from their land and relocating them somewhere else. If evidence for sea level rises due to AGW is true, then this is going to present an enormous problem for governments everywhere, particularly in Australia with our thousands of km of coastline.

You can't just pretend things out of existence - you can't even nominate where this relatively small community might go, and your disdain for the TS Islanders' perspective is woeful. Indeed, I can't help but detect a whiff of envy towards landowners from someone who isn't one, for some reason.

OK - you can't answer the hard questions (which is understandable - I don't think anybody can yet), so how about an easy one?

Where do you propose sending the Saibai Islanders? Your answer will undoubtedly lead to more questions, but you can answer them in due course.

morganzola,
this isn't getting silly, you are.
as to your question where they should go, ask them where they'd prefer.
Now, do you think we should pour more taxpayer money into Saibai or not ? If yes, what do you think can be done with that money to stop the island being flooded ?

@ rehctub:

I'm not sure why I'm persisting with this, but on the off-chance that you genuinely don't get it...

Let's assume you're correct and the island is no longer habitable, as determined by reliable and objective evidence of increasing inundation. If that is indeed proven to be the case, I agree that remediation measures for Saibai itself are a waste of money in the long term.

You say we just remove the landowners to wherever they want. So far so good. Who pays for removal expenses? What about the question of compensation, which will surely be an issue? What if they refuse to go? What about when other neighbouring islands are also largely inundated?

I'm not sure if you've seen any of the TV vision that is starting to be screened about sea level rises in the Torres Strait, but what has been shown so far indicates that the issue is one of those associated with climate change in the media's eye, and the TSI landowners have been described as 'internal refugees'. In short, another can of worms for the government (or preferably some wider body) to deal with. I can see the headlines: "Internal refugees housed in luxury motels!" or some other such nonsense.

It seems to me that this is one of those issues that you really haven't thought through at all, and part of your problem is your attitude, which is often aggressive and obtuse. Now, instead of stonewalling, why don't you answer the questions I've asked above that your own solution (such that it is) raises?

morganzola,
it is you who is utterly ill-informed. Who pays for removal ? The taxpayer of course who has been & still is paying for this island population to exist. If they refuse to move then for their sake I hope they're excellent swimmers. Who will pay compensation ? Compensate for what ? The entire infrastructure is taxpayer funded so it'll not be a question of compensation. no-one has paid a single cent for the land that is inhabited so shifting to another, higher island will not involve land cost as such. It will come down to how their own people are inclined to help their own people. The taxpayer will look after the moving. Providing land which has never cost any money is a matter for the families to agree on.
I have told you over & over of my solution & that is to move to higher ground. If you can avoid inundation with culture & pride then I wish you the best of success.

@ individual:

I'm beginning to see why people tend to resort to ridicule with you, or just ignore you.

So the Saibai Islanders can go wherever they like, so long as it's an island now, eh? Which island/s did you have in mind, given that they're all distinct, kin-based communities? Wouldn't that put additional pressure on those islands, which would be losing land too, surely?

Also, you know full well that those communities who had to give up land would be demanding compensation - or are you going to abolish 'kastom' as well?

Actually, don't bother replying.

Dear Morganzola,

I'm reminded of a Monty Python segment - where a Roman ruler is
sitting on top of a hill surrounded by his admirers and in a nearby boat his friends are saying , "Come and join us in the boat, your waters are rising." Whereas the Roman ruler and his admirers insist,
"We will never sink, the waters cannot rise." As slowly, but surely - members of the ruler's admiring group disapper slowly under the rising waters.

Some people just know better.

When the people believed the earth was flat - they didn't venture
far from their homes for fear of falling off the edge of the earth.
Therefore by not venturing to find the edge of the earth - they
continued to believe the earth was flat. Therefore there is no climate change because I got up this morning - it was the same as it was yesterday. So how can there be any climate change. Right? That's
only logically. LOL.

Hi Lexi,

Personally, I'm more reminded of the excruciating Black Knight scene in 'Holy Grail'.

Sheesh!

morganzola,
What's kustom got to do with an island getting inundated ? Do you know what kastom actally is ?

Lexi,
now that others have told you the earth isn't flat why don't you go to Saibai on monday. You'd probably last till thursday unless you score an earlier flight out.

Lexi,
I got muddled up with morgan's question avoiding. Perhaps I'm not getting the gist of what you said. I apologise if i'm wrong.

Lexi,
when did I ever deny climate change, please point to that post.
You'll have plenty of time before morganzola actually comes back with yet another answer avoiding question.

Lexi,
it was the same as yesterday ? I'm not so sure about that on Saibai because the tides were way higher 60 years ago.
There is a climate change & sea levels are rising again, again being the operative word.
morganzola is simply trying to work out a way of describing that any taxpayer money spent on indigenous is always justified even with rising sea level. He says he is in business, would that be the guilt industry ? No wonder he thinks there's no recession out there.

Sheesh!
moronzola,
you really do live up to the title of this thread & my expectations.

@individual:

Why would I waste any more time on an ill-mannered, obtuse time waster like you?

Little wonder nobody takes you seriously. Ciao.

Dear Individual,

The following may be of interest:

http://www.documentaryaustralia.com.au/films/details/591/dancing-on-water

Lexi,
I watched some of the filming but haven't seen the finished product. Can't really comment on it.
I must say though that RAN was pretty close to factual.

morganzola,
so the rat's leaving the sinking ship. You simply can not get yourself to accept an inconvenient fact. much easier to ridicule those who know & care eh ?

@ individual:

Thanks for yet another insult. The reason that I refuse to play your silly games is that life is too short to bother with ill-mannered, ignorant whingers..

I think you should resign from the job that apparently causes you so much grief, in favour of somebody who at least has some sympathy for, and/or interest in, the Indigenous people for whom you work.

I've given you much more time than your attitude deserves. Go and troll someone else.

morganzola,
thanks for enlightening everyone on OLO that caring & trying to highlight problems & trying to expose incompetence & corruption is troll. I'm sure the australian taxpayers who are forking out to no limit will be very pleased by your statement.