# What happens to the Tuvaluans when their country sinks?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 8, 2001, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330 "2001-09-08T01:29:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/21 "2001-09-10T02:49:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> What a bunch of racist garbage!
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.
> [@](#):
>
> Sea levels all over the world have been increasing for many years,
Prove it.
> [@](#):
>
> and not just
> because Tuvaluians have been moving their sand about.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> Temperatures are also increasing. No peer reviewed scientific paper disputes
> these things.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> In fact, even the cause is getting to the point where real scientists (peer reviewed) are almost unanimous.
Please cite some unanimity on this subject among peer-reviewed scientists.
> [@](#):
>
> Right-wing radio
> talk show hosts are not scientists, they are blow hards.
So are pufferfish. What’s your point?
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/22 "2001-09-10T02:58:38Z")
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?
---
### Author:  [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/23 "2001-09-10T03:14:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DPWhite \*
> \*\*
>
> Temperatures are also increasing. No peer reviewed scientific paper disputes these things. \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/24 "2001-09-10T03:28:04Z")
Hi **Scylla**
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?
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> Finally, you’ve made a very emotional appeal and doing so, you’ve ignored the facts and arguments I’ve laid out before you.
> \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/25 "2001-09-10T03:59:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by vorfod \*
> \*\* The obvious answer is Australia, and considering our Government just boarded a container vessel with SAS troops due to there being 400 odd assylum seekers on board, I’d like to see the reaction over 11,000 odd refugees… (Then again, they’re not Middle Eastern, and probably not Muslim, so they have a better chance). \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@DPWhite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPWhite)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/26 "2001-09-10T05:10:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by DPWhite \*
> > \*\*
> >
> > Temperatures are also increasing. No peer reviewed scientific paper disputes these things. \*\*
>
> 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. \*\*
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:
[http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/](http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/)
and for other sites, please see:
[http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=global+warming](http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=global+warming)
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.
---
### Author:  [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/27 "2001-09-10T06:15:44Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@vorfod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vorfod)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/28 "2001-09-10T06:41:17Z")
**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.
---
### Author:  [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/29 "2001-09-10T06:54:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by vorfod \*
> \*\ ***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.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/30 "2001-09-10T13:22:17Z")
DPwhite:
Those cites are not peer reviewed. The first is a summary according to one point of view, the other is simply the results of a Yahoo search.
You throw the term “peer reviewed” pretty casually, but like so much else, you don’t seem to know what it means.
Neither of thouse sources are peer reviewed material.
You will need to provide original source material if you wish to make your statements stand.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/31 "2001-09-10T14:29:33Z")
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_) 😉
---
### Author:  [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/32 "2001-09-10T15:37:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Some Guy \*
> \*\*A minor nitpick: the Order of Malta does control territory, consisting of a single building in Rome. Because of its history, this territory is considered separate from the Holy See, which makes it by far the smallest sovereign territory to retain substantial (though not universal) international recognition.
>
> [Here’s](http://www.smom.org) a link to their official English language website, maintained by the Order’s U. S. chapter. It is doubtful that their particular [url=“[http://www.smom.org/order/history.html](http://www.smom.org/order/history.html)”] would help the Tuvaluans’ case at all, though. \*\*
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…
---
### Author:  [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/33 "2001-09-10T15:43:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by vorfod \*
> [The obvious answer is Australia, and considering our Government just boarded a container vessel with SAS troops due to there being 400 odd assylum seekers on board, I’d like to see the reaction over 11,000 odd refugees… (Then again, they’re not Middle Eastern, and probably not Muslim, so they have a better chance). \*\*
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.
Not that it will be a comfortable situation…
---
### Author:  [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/34 "2001-09-10T15:57:36Z")
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?
Erek
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/35 "2001-09-10T16:01:38Z")
Coincidently, I think I had the Tuvalu fettucine Alfredo at Outback Steakhouse on Saturday.
---
### Author:  [@DPWhite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPWhite)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/36 "2001-09-10T17:46:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
> \*\*DPwhite:
>
> Those cites are not peer reviewed. The first is a summary according to one point of view, the other is simply the results of a Yahoo search.
>
> You throw the term “peer reviewed” pretty casually, but like so much else, you don’t seem to know what it means.
>
> Neither of thouse sources are peer reviewed material.
>
> You will need to provide original source material if you wish to make your statements stand. \*\*
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?
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/37 "2001-09-10T18:11:35Z")
Listen up, chuckles.
“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 fiction**** Butch 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.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/38 "2001-09-10T18:31:11Z")
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.
The first one I clicked on was this:
[http://www.globalwarming.org/](http://www.globalwarming.org/)
Here’s what they say in their Q&A:
> [@](#):
>
> 1. What will be the effect on global climate of increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the air?
> Nobody knows for sure.
That doesn’t sound very definitive. But wait, there’s more:
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Has the earth’s temperature increased over the last 100 years in step with increasing atmospheric CO2?
> No.
Wow. Your own link disagrees with you.
and some more:
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Has the earth’s temperature increased over the past two decades?
> Very little, by 0.05°C per decade in the lower atmosphere.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Is it possible that human-made global warming is occurring, but is masked by the cooling effect of air pollution?
> This is not likely
> [@](#):
>
> 1. How much will the earth’s temperature rise if the amount of human-made CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase in the next 100 years?
> There is no definitive answer to this question at present
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Are computer simulations of the earth’s climate accurate?
> No.
and:
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Will the earth’s climate change in other ways?
> Predictions of changes in other aspects of climate, such as precipitation and sea-level rise, are even more uncertain than the projections of global temperature.
> 2. Will global warming produce a rise in sea level and cause major flooding?
> As computer simulations have become more sophisticated, projections of rising sea levels have become much smaller
And, you will notice that they provide an in depth explanation for each of these answers as well as **citing** original source material.
I am thinking that talking to you is a colossal waste of time. Did you even bother to examine your links?
They don’t agree with you. They don’t say what you think they say.
Damn man, what you’re doing is as if a creationist were to post a link to a FAQ on evolution in an attempt to prove God made the world from scratch.
Your arguments, your evidence, and your demeanor is a joke.
I’ll be sure and remember your posts as an object lesson in how to shoot yourself in the foot.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/39 "2001-09-10T20:11:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
> \*\*
> Please cite some unanimity on this subject among peer-reviewed scientists.
> \*\*
**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](http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2001/2001L-06-07-06.html) was that:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” the report concludes. “Temperatures are, in fact, rising.”
>
> The committee said the conclusion of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global warming that has occurred in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community.\*\*
The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change](http://www.solcomhouse.com/IPCC.htm) has come to similar conclusions:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> This paper is based on the conclusions of the most recent careful, objective and comprehensive analysis of all relevant scientific, technical and economic information by thousands of experts (natural scientists, social scientists and technologists) from the appropriate fields of science from academia, governments, industry and environmental organizations from around the world under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . . .
>
> The overwhelming majority of experts in both developed and developing countries recognize that scientific uncertainties exist, however, there is little doubt that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past 100 years in response to human activities and that further human-induced changes in climate are inevitable. During the last few years many parts of the world have suffered major heat waves, floods, droughts and an increase in extreme weather events leading to significant economic losses and loss of life. While individual extreme weather events cannot be directly linked to human-induced climate change, the frequency and magnitude of these types of events are expected to increase in a warmer world.
>
> The question is not whether climate will change further in the future in response to human activities, but rather by how much (magnitude), where (regional patterns), and when (the rate of change). . .
>
> Sea level is projected to rise between 1990 and 2100 by 8-88 cm: Associated with the projected changes in temperature, sea level is projected to increase by 8 - 88 cm by 2100, caused primarily by thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers .
>
> Temperatures and sea level will continue to rise for a century or more and many centuries, respectively, after the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilized. . . .While the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would stabilize within about one century, temperature will continue to increase for several hundreds of years, and sea level will continue to increase for several millennia.
>
> \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2001, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330/40 "2001-09-10T20:49:08Z")
Colibri:
From your cite:
> [@](#):
>
> We don’t know precisely how much of this rise to date is from human activities…
Hmmm.
> [@](#):
>
> …Based on assumptions that emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to rise, and conservative assumptions about how the climate will react to that, the committee reports that computer models suggest that average global surface temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century…
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.
> [@](#):
>
> …However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores…
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.
> [@](#):
>
> …To reduce some of the uncertainties, “a strong commitment must be made to basic research as well as to improving climate models and building a global climate observing system,” the committee said…
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.
Can you provide a link to the actual report?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-to-the-tuvaluans-when-their-country-sinks/80330.md?page=3)