Excuse me, you’re calling me racist? I don’t think that word means what you think it does. Being racist would imply that I am prejudiced against the Tuvaluans because of their race. I am neither prejudiced against them (not ever having heard of Tuvalu or its people before,) nor do I know what color their skin is.
Prove it.
Oh I’m so sorry. How could I be so stupid? Clearly digging up the beaches on islands where the highest point is under 30 feet above sea level will have no detrimental effects. Thanks for reminding me. Now I’ll have to remember to ignore all those “don’t walk on the dunes” signs, since you’ve shown me that beachfront is so hardy.
Are you sure of that? I’m well read on this subject, and I’ll make you a deal. You show me a peer reviewed paper claiming to prove global warming, and I’ll show you one claiming to prove it doesn’t exist. Actually though, I am of the opinion that the earth is warming very slowly, largely due to the fact that we are still coming out of an ice-age. What effect pollution has on this, if any, is highly disputable.
Please cite some unanimity on this subject among peer-reviewed scientists.
That’s all very humanitarian of you, but I have a hard time throwing aid at a country that has more than $8,000 cash/citizen on hand, yet allows its citizens (as you cite) to live in such adverse conditions.
It seems to me that if the Government of Tuvalu has botched their job to such a degree that they’ve allowed their very land to be destroyed through their own shortsighted expoloitation, than I sure as hell wouldn’t want to give them some more land to destroy, and I don’t think it makes any sense to offer them aid unless and until they actually use their cash first, instead of just hording it.
Governments are not people, and it means nothing whatsoever if the bureacracy that is the government of Tuvalu continues to exist or not. A bureacracy does not have a right to life.
Finally, you’ve made a very emotional appeal and doing so, you’ve ignored the facts and arguments I’ve laid out before you.
Why should some country give up their land (which they have not sunk into the ocean,) so that Tuvalu continues to exist as a sovereign nation?
Tuvalu is destroying its territory through mismanagement. Why give them more?
Are you quite sure about this? Because if I went and found even one single peer reviewed scientific paper that “disputes” that global temperatures are increasing, I will have proven you wrong.
Not to mention the issue of whether or not temperature increases are caused by human activity.
Actually, recent evidence suggests that sea levels are falling, which is perplexing scientists, because it goes contrary to the global warming model.
This however doesn’t help the Tuvulans.
11000 people is the population of a medium sized town. But if the Australian government gave them an island in far north Queensland, said, “Here you go. This is New Tuvalu. Nice high seashore, lots of fertile dirt. Here is an airport, sanitation, other infrastructure. You get limited sovereignty, but you’re part of the Australian federation. In return, pay us lots of money and give us your fishing rights over your old islands.”
Would that be too hard?
Well, not really. Its true, from what I’ve read, that there has been serious environmental degradation on their islands, and I’m sure you are correct when you say that this is part of the problem. But when you have a bunch of people who are subsistence fishermen living on some piles of sand in the middle of nowhere, any sort of short-term industry can seem like a good idea at the time. These people have surely made mistakes (why isn’t this place the Pacific version of the Maldives?), but the people shouldn’t be allowed to fall into the ocean.
The $8000 per person in cash reserves is a little deceptive when you think about the small size of the population. Its hardly a monumental cash reserve. If you had socialist ideals and thought that everyone should get that $8000, or part thereof, to buy a fridge and a washing machine, you’d get serious inflation issues, which wouldn’t solve anything. I have no idea what their financial policies are all about, but I’d hazard a guess that keeping a lot of cash about to upgrade schools and hospitals when needs be is probably pretty prudent.
Australia has no problem with asylum seekers. The objection is to illegal immigrants.
If they apply for residency, they have a good chance of getting in. I’m sure the fact that their island is sinking will be taken into consideration. However, if they jump a leaky boat and try to row for it, they will be turned away.
I’m not saying Australia is right. I’m saying that a lot of the people see boat people as queue jumpers and trouble makers. We don’t have a problem housing those who go through the proper channels.
Oh, I am soooo sorry to dispute a bunch of mere assertions and ask for proof without providing my own when my own are scientifically undisputed. Here goes:
These sites are based exclusively on peer reviewed science.
Now blowhards, peer reviewed contrary please. Oh, wait, that’s right, you just blow hard, you don’t support anything you say.
Next, where you got your crap for information was obviously some right wing talk show, the only people left who are “doubting” global warming. Or, you could prove me wrong and cite you silly sources for you ridiculous post. Oh, wait, you don’t cite. I forgot.
There is a vast degree between a pufferfish and a right wing talk show host. One is a bottom dwelling scum sucker. The other is a fish.
As for racist, yeah, the post was racist. :
"Scylla to Dave:
That’s all very humanitarian of you, but I have a hard time throwing aid at a country that has more than $8,000 cash/citizen on hand, yet allows its citizens (as you cite) to live in such adverse conditions.
It seems to me that if the Government of Tuvalu has botched their job to such a degree that they’ve allowed their very land to be destroyed through their own shortsighted expoloitation, than I sure as hell wouldn’t want to give them some more land to destroy, and I don’t think it makes any sense to offer them aid unless and until they actually use their cash first, instead of just hording it.
Governments are not people, and it means nothing whatsoever if the bureacracy that is the government of Tuvalu continues to exist or not. A bureacracy does not have a right to life.
Finally, you’ve made a very emotional appeal and doing so, you’ve ignored the facts and arguments I’ve laid out before you.
Why should some country give up their land (which they have not sunk into the ocean,) so that Tuvalu continues to exist as a sovereign nation?
Tuvalu is destroying its territory through mismanagement. Why give them more?"
Wake up, there is nothing about Scylla post that isn’t racist. You assume that Tuvalu is not losing ground to rising sea levels, but to “moving their sand about”. Cite please. They are hoarding cash and you won’t support aid. It’s one thing to avoid supporting aid, I was unaware they had asked. But hoarding cash? It’s called savings, a good thing. Why would you insist that someone be impoverished before providing a loan (the usual form of aid?). Banks don’t make loans to people who don’t have any money, collateral that is. You claim to have facts and arguments. Where? Rules of logic ignored, no cites.
I actually don’t think Scylla’s post was racist at all: I think that it is just insensitive to their plight.
The CIA Factbook (see my link above) mentions that there has been environmental mismanagement of the island chain. If memory serves me correctly, the mining of copra involves messing around with seashores, so, without runnning off to verify this, I’d say that one the copra mining probably has something to do with their problem.
But we are not talking about the vast stretches of Russian or Canadian hinterland which has capacity to absorb environmental foul-ups. If they have ruined their seashore, then if sea levels are rising, that is pretty much the end of their country.
cazzle: I’ll disagree with you on that one. If you need to seek assylum, you don’t have the time to wait for a bureaucracy to pull their finger out. You get the hell out of dodge city.
As for the whole assylum seeker/illegal immigrant argument - give me a break. The incident I was referring to was a clear case of a Prime Minister using disadvanteaged people as a means to an end, fanning the flames of xenophobia in the hope of being re-elected.
Hey, I agree with you. We only like asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants, which means the people of Australia will only accept refugees from those countries that are persecuting them enough to make them miserable, but not enough to prevent them applying for residency elsewhere. Kind of a Catch-22 situation. Unfortunatly, most Australians seek the boat people as wealthy people trying to bypass the whole immigration system. Media reports of illegals demanding internet access, cable television and better food in immigration detention centres fuel the fire of anger against them. When the immigrants on the Tampa demanded to be taken to Australia rather than Indonesia, some of the few supporters they had turned on them because we all feel that “beggars can’t be choosers” and if they were fleeing a situation that bad, they should be grateful to whichever country extends the charity. All this means that the poor sods don’t have much of a hope if they try to come to Australia, and it’s going to take a lot to change people’s perspective on it. I’ve heard people remark that the Tampa refugees should be returned to Afghanistan, and that if they won’t follow the Taliban’s rules, they deserve to die. I’m sure the whole “Our island is sinking” argument will fall on deaf ears.
Yeah, I agree also that Little Johnny took advantage of the situation to try and get re-elected. I have a long enough memory to know that he lied about Telstra and lied about the GST, so no matter how many desperate and homeless people he turns away, I won’t be giving him my vote.
It would seem to me that for substantially less than the several tens of millions they appear to have in the national treasury, some remediation work could be done – breakwaters, levees, soil desalinization processes, etc. Plus, historically, it takes substantial time to erode away an entire atoll or islet – and the resulting reef, being just subsurface, has the potential for (a) coral regrowth or (b) construction atop it. There are marine contractors in CA and HI, and I would assume in Australia and Ennzedd, that could tackle a project of this size – one (from Florida) converted a just-below-surface reef in the Bahamas to a major luxury resort in the 90s.
The SMOM/Lithuania concept (nation retains sovereignty largely through embassies, people live in other countries retaining their nationality) makes a possible fallback. (Were you aware that for a couple of decades in the 1700s SMOM owned St. Croix, USVI?)
Final option is historical: Invade Greece. (cf. Plato’s Timaeus)
Well…but as long as the islands aren’t in totality under the sea at all times (as opposed to only uninhabitable), Tuvalu would have a territory, too…And so, according to international law, territorial waters and fishing rights…
Well…considering the situation (either someone allow them in , either they drow), I’m pretty sure that other countries would welcome them in. Also, I suppose it won’t happen over the night. The Tuvalians will probably relocate progressively.
I’d always heard that we were headed for an Ice Age pretty quickly here, that global warming is a sign of an impending ice age. The world heats up sends gasses into the atmosphere these gases float around up there obscuring the sun and causing the Earth’s surface to cool, and supposedly from the starting point of global warming to the beginning of the ice age can happen within a generation.
Though, I learned this in High School and I have since grown to distrust everything I learned in High School, as it’s only slightly less informative than Mad Magazine. So could someone who knows more say something about this?
I didn’t say the sites were peer reviewed, but the materials on the sites were based on peer reviewed science, which is referenced on those sites. Yes, one is a Yahoo listing of those sites. Time for you to review them rather than simply observe that it is a Yahoo listing. Some in fact contain raw data. But since you can’t cite your sources, why should I assume that you read? I would be happy to read your citations. Oh, that’s right, you have special dispensation as a blowhard and don’t need to refer to real research. I forgot, my apologies.
Delve into the cites and find out what you are talking about. There are hundreds of references supporting my position. As for “my statements” standing, I didn’t make factual statements other than summarizing the real science.
You still haven’t cited your sources. At this point, let’s just assume that you can’t and it was mouthing off. Aren’t there websites for people who just mouth off?
“Cite” and “site” are not the same things. Posting a link to some general information on global warming is not a “cite.” What you need to do is something like a bibliography. Provide a short quote, directly supporting your statement, than provide a link to the original source material.
You’re the one making asinine statements. You need to support them specifically.
You are the one who talks about “peer review,” and how nobody denies global warming. Fine, put up or shut up. Show me a peer reviewed article claiming to prove global warming, and I’ll show you one claiming that it doesn’t exist.
So far you have failed miserably, as I knew you would.
“Based on peer-reviewed material,” is a joke. Lifetime movies are often based on true stories, but They are still fictionButch Cassidy and The Sundance kid was based on a true story.
Larry Niven’s Ringworld is based on peer reviewed scinece. It is not true.
Do me a favor please. Don’t quote my whole post back to me. You can just write “Scylla:” and I’ll assume you’re referring to our ongoing discussion.
Just to show that I’m a nice guy, I clicked on one of your links in the yahoo page.
Scylla, you evidently do not keep up with the news. George W. Bush, not exactly noted as a tree-hugger, asked 11 eminent members of the National Academy of Sciences -some of whom were initially sceptical about global warming -to evaluate the problem. Their conclusion was that:
At this point, there is a very clear and overwhelming consensus among climate scientists throughout the world that global warming is occuring, and that it is at least partially due to human activities. Sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the ocean and the melting of glaciers and ice-caps is a corollary of overall warming.
Scylla, I have no doubt that you can dig up a few peer-reviewed acticles that make counter-claims. However, I am pretty sure I can match them at least 10 to one - and maybe 50 to one - with peer-reviewed articles that support the reality of global warming.
I’ll play the match-the-citations game with you if you insist, but I guarantee you will lose.
That’s a pretty beautifully hedged statement, isn’t it? As it should be. What we have here is a hypothesis, not evidence. As a side note, I will also note that it’s a poor hypothesis as stated. True, it makes a testable prediction, but includes no suggestion as to how to seperate any natural warming from that influenced by greenhouse gases.
Like all good scientists, these folks are explaining up front the weaknesses in their hypothesis, and their degree of uncertainty. In this case it seems high.
And now a call to ascertain more certainty.
“Peer review” is DP’s buzzward. Personally I don’t insist on it except in this case when he brought it up.
Peer reviewed papers tend to very cautious in their conclusions. Reporters seeking to make news tend the other way.
