Kiribati man loses his appeal for ‘climate refugee’ status in New Zealand
Submitted by Eric Worrall
While predictions of millions of climate refugees have been rather wide of the mark, like most climate model predictions, it is wrong to state there are no climate refugees.
In fact, there has been one climate refugee. And, he just lost his appeal.
Ioane Teitiota, 37, lost his Court of Appeal case against a tribunal decision refusing him refugee status in New Zealand.
The tribunal described Mr. Teitiota’s case as “fundamentally misconceived”.
Mr. Teitiota is likely to be deported back to Kiribati, despite his claim that throughout the case, there has been ‘passive persecution’ from the inability of the Kiribati government to protect the right to life of Mr Teitiota and his children.” (presumably from the dangers of climate change and sea level rise). [They have not] ruled out appealing the decision to New Zealand’s Supreme Court.
If that fails, he says, they may consider taking the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva.
Mr Teitiota has been living in New Zealand with his wife and New Zealand-born children since 2007.
Full story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/an-kiribati-man-loses-climate-change-refugee-appeal/5447170
==============================================================
We’ve heard about the claims that sea level rise is “inundating” Kiribati. A cursory check of the tide gauge there shows the data since 1974:
The Tide Gauge Data plot for Christmas Island, part of Kiribati, magnified:
![1371_high[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1371_high1.png?resize=640%2C256)
Source: University of Hawii http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1371.php
The most recent data is about the same as in 1975 ~7100mm – essentially no change. There is a very slight positive trend in the data, about 0.36mm/yr but that is likely an artifact of endpoints. Given the ENSO related variability (see the big spike in 1998, the year of the super El Niño and another in 2010, also an El Niño year) that slight trend could change with the next set of measurements.
Thanks Eric. You have very interesting info, and keep at it.
As Willis, Chris De Freitas and others keep explaining, it is a population problem, not something that can be called AGW or CC.
Too many people, too little land above sea level.
Question:
Why does sea level rise in an El Nino year? Isn’t the ocean giving up a lot of heat to the atmosphere, especially around that region, so should it not fall (a tiny bit) ? Is it a wind direction thing ?
Champagne wishes and Caviar dreams.
Ha ha
It’s strange, you’d think that the NZ govt. and justice system, having given carte blanche to their weather service to misreport weather data to inflate evidence of global warming would be ready accept the “refugees” they have created.
Perhaps the tribunal is telling Mr. Teitiota that the claim Kiribati is threatened is “fundamentally misconceived”. Otherwise his claim seems to make sense.
Coastal tidal stations data are affected by sea level changes, land rise and fall, and the sea level changes may be affected, presumably for months on end, by wind direction and force. Thus if a strong east wind blows, water levels will tend to rise on coasts to the west, and fall to the east. There could be also effects from air pressure fluctuations, though I would not be certain how permanent these could be to make a noticeable effect on the data.
Willis Eschenbach has posited – on a thread now closed to further comment (April 23), that you could take a lake – where water level would normally be calm, use this as a reference point for GPS height determination, and thus have a fixed height from which all other satellite height data could be calibrated. This in turn should enable all tide gauges to be corrected for land rising or falling.
However, earlier in the same thread he produced a graph showing 95% confidence intervals as a function of length of observations.
This raises two questions:
1. Can it be certain that the height of the initial reference point is not changing. Suppose that the reference point is at a lake in Switzerland. As I understand it, the north African plate is moving north and colliding with the Euro-Asian plate. If so, the Alps must be raised due to the compression from the two colliding plates. I suppose a site in Central Australia or Mid West USA might be exempt from this problem?
2. The debasement of the GPS system was only switched off during the First Gulf War to enable the Allied military forces to use commercial GPS. That being the case, precision GPS has only been available for about 25 years. The confidence levels given by Willis for 25 years observations appeared to be about plus or minus 2 mm. The graph above does not appear to have any significant trend, but the data vary from about 6920 mm to 7450 mm, a range of 530 mm during the near 40 year period. With a range this size, what would one need to be assured that there was a significant trend – the 2 mm posited by Willis, or something rather larger?
From my loving wife, when she saw my post “Quick, send him a wind turbine…”
🙂
The judgement summary included:
” The appellant raised an argument that the international community itself was tantamount to the “persecutor” for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. This completely reverses the traditional refugee paradigm. Traditionally a refugee is fleeing his own government or a non-state actor from whom the government is unwilling or unable to protect him. Thus the claimant is seeking refuge within the very countries that are allegedly “persecuting” him.”
Leave to appeal was dismissed.
“If that fails, he says, they may consider taking the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva.”
I recall an old saying by Samuel Johnson about “the last refuge of a scoundrel”.
The United Nations have evidently assumed that role.
philincalifornia says:
Why does sea level rise in an El Nino year? Isn’t the ocean giving up a lot of heat to the atmosphere, especially around that region, so should it not fall (a tiny bit) ? Is it a wind direction thing ?
===
Good question. NOAA animations show increased zonal winds ( NS, SN direction) towards the equator during El Nino events, as well as a ridge of higher sea level across most of the equatorial Pacific. Kiribati is almost on the equator near the international data line.Pretty much bang in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
What is interesting is the large, sudden drop just after. Each time there seems to be a steady build up then sudden drop. A massive drop of 0.5m after 1998 El Nino.
And a steady downward trend since 2003. No one’s going to be drowning any time soon due to rising sea levels “as the world warms”.
Apparently. if mean sea level is rising. it’s all piling up mid ocean somewhere, where satellites measure it and not on the coast where it affect people. Cool.
It is just so absurd to talk about the “threat” of sea level rise in the language of millimeters. As Bob Tisdale has shown in his writings, sea levels in the Pacific basin vary by as much as a half-meter (500 mms) between El Nino events.
Mr. Teitiota may have cause for concern. I would not want my family exposed to a Pacific storm in a hut perched a few feet above sea level. So why did he move there? New Zealand’s finding that this is a case “fundamentally misconceived” is right on.
“Apparently. if mean sea level is rising. it’s all piling up mid ocean somewhere, where satellites measure it and not on the coast where it affect people.”
It’s all in the deep ocean, far from sensing apparatus. The same special magic place where the hidden heat is being kept.
Look at the case of Tivula, they were crying and wailing at Coperhagen, their island was sinking under rising sea level rises. All our fault. They approached the Aust and NZ government demanding they take them not as refugees but automatic citizens and train them for jobs. Economic refugees, They eventually sort compensation from the UNCCF but the criteria was too complicated for them to apply. Oh yes? i wonder why?
We have plenty of room for him here in northern Canada, however I believe he would be more than willing to return to his “submerged” island by about November.
Bill Parsons says:
May 12, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Mr. Teitiota may have cause for concern. I would not want my family exposed to a Pacific storm in a hut perched a few feet above sea level. So why did he move there? New Zealand’s finding that this is a case “fundamentally misconceived” is right on.
No, he didn’t move there, he was born there, he moved to New Zealand, overstayed his visa, married, had children here, and does not want to go back
Quite frankly, I agree with him, but to try to use AGW as an excuse is, as the Appeal Court ruled, he wants to move to the countries he cites as the cause of his distress.
A lot of the Pacific atolls are over populated, they have killed all the parrot fish, the reefs are slowly being killed, not by AGW, but by neglect. They are like a tall hedge on your property, if it is not kept pruned on a regular basis, it becomes straggly, and starts to die back
Willis has written extensively on this, along with him, I have lived in the Solomons, Rarotonga, and Samoa. I have found nothing in what Willis writes that runs counter to reality.
All the handwaving, the screams of desperation will not stop reality. All of the Atolls are over populated, and unfortunately modern life has caused this. It is not so long ago that child mortality on most of the atolls approached 90%, so families had lots of children, for a short time, then the children died, and only the fittest survived.
#9 Hospital in Honiara, when I was there in 2009/2010, had an infant mortality rate of 80%, the adult mortality rate was not a lot higher for the native population. Mainly because of distance, it might take 3 – 5 days to get to hospital, after waiting 3 – 5 days to wonder if hospital was necessary
I’m sorry for Mr. Teitiota, but if he had done what the majority of people from the Pacific Islands do in New Zealand and register, apply for citizenship, he would not be in the position he is.
We have plenty of room for him here in northern Canada, however I believe he would be more than willing to return to his “submerged” island by about November. Brrrrrr
All of the peaks on the Kiribati chart match up with the peaks of the MEI. You can also see the influence of the La Ninas on the lows, although the size of the Nina does not always correspond to the depth of the drop in sea level. Looks like other mitigating influences moderate the Ninas. There is also a distinct pattern in the Kiribati graph, which looks like it may have entered into a new phase around 2005 from the preceding 30 years.
Why is Kiribati linked to Christmas Island? Christmas Island is in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia and Kiribati is in the Nth Pacific Ocean near Hawaii
Filtering out the spiles, the effect of El Nino is several years of lower sea level. Ignoring those events there has been a general downward trend since early 1980’s
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=940
If there’s another strong El Nino now they will hbe having to drag thier boats hundreds of yards across bear, exposed coral to go fishing. It’s worse than we thought.
Ok Ignore my comment above. I just found that the main Island of Kiribati is also called Christmas Island.
Cargo! We went through all the steps to receive cargo. We faithfully observed the process. As it had been demonstrated to us.
We built the airfield. We built the control tower. We stared at the skies. We constructed magic boxes, and ceremonially spoke to them with directions to our islands. We made headsets out of coconut halves. We waved paddles made from palm fronds.
The cargo failed to arrive. Ergo, we will now demand to emigrate to countries whose sky gods do deliver them cargo. Cargo!
Looks like there has been almost no change in almost 40 years. Certainly not the doomsday predictions that all fuss has been made about. We have seen predictions of 9-90 metres from the alarmists for 2100, The reality is closer to 2mm per year or 180mm rise by 2100, not the 9,000 to 90,000 mm predicted by the alarmists. Couple of zeroes added for good measure perhaps? Given we are about to enter a cooling period, the real rise could easily be just 90mm(if that), meaning the doomsayers are out by a factor of 100-1,000. To be out by a factor of 1,000 when an error factor of 2 is probably acceptable is not just gross incompetence, it is deliberate misrepresentation. Given the stakes involved with the misrepresentation, the punishments meted out should rightfully reflect the degree of distortion ie the punishment should be 100-1,000 times worse than what is normally handed out for scientific fraud.Perhaps those charged with meting out the punishment can add a couple of zeroes themselves.
Yes I made the same mistake, Steve, the difference is, ‘the’ Christmas Island was occupied by the British in the late 40s and 50s (I knew an RAF officer who had been posted there) and they conducted nuclear tests there. Well I didn’t think they had any indigenous islanders there, we live and learn. He must have had a lousy prosecuting lawyer.
“Ergo, we will now demand to emigrate to countries whose sky gods do deliver them cargo. Cargo!”
Cargo and coconuts !
Just Google that island most of the occupants have been encouraged to emigrate from the Gilbert island and is now considered over populated. There are more cars there now than people in 1958. Just Google ‘Christmas Island and British nuclear tests’ The Americans conducted tests too there for a short while in 1962. It is certainly not sinking.
Steve B says:
“Ok Ignore my comment above. I just found that the main Island of Kiribati is also called Christmas Island.”
__________________
No its not. The main island is Tarawa – where many US men lost their lives recovering it back from the Japanese in WWII.
Kiribati (a Micronesian rendition of Christmas) is composed of thirty-two atolls and one raised island covering 3.5 million square kilometres of the north Pacific. Christmas Island is but one of the atolls.
It was called Christmas Island by the British, but the islanders couldn’t pronounce S, anyway, they did conduct atmospheric nuclear tests there, and so did the American’s in 1962, at first it was thought the Red Emperor fish that islanders ate, were tainted and malformed by high nuclear contamination.
Not sure of this is the case now?
“Warren in New Zealand says:
May 12, 2014 at 10:25 pm
I’m sorry for Mr. Teitiota, but if he had done what the majority of people from the Pacific Islands do in New Zealand and register, apply for citizenship, he would not be in the position he is.”
It’s not that easy, and trust me, having been through the process you talk of in several countries, one of which was New Zealand (NZ), I know what I am talking about. I suspect that he does not meet with any of the criteria to be granted a permanent residents visa (PR), and therefore afterwards, granted a citiszenship (C). He would need to legally hold PR for 5 years before applying for C. My guess is that he “thought” that getting a woman, on shore, pregnant, would secure PR. This used to work in the past. This has failed and he has tried an alterate path, a climate change refugee. This too has failed. He should go home. The only issue I see here is that he has children, born in NZ. That may be his “saving grace”, I also suspect that he is not working and is recieving benefits and would have nothing at all in his homeland.
PS. There is no such system as a justice system in NZ. A legal system, yes. This is why this case has gone on as long as it has. Lawyers fees! Some is making lots of money out of this.
I am sorry to inform Mr. Worrall that there are many world’s first climate refugees. 😉
Mr. Ioane Teitiota has been described as the “World’s first ‘climate change refugee’”. But as I hope you can see HERE the World Bank Data shows that there has been an almost LINEAR rate of growth of the Kiribati population since 1960, while Palau and the Marshall Islands have been FLATTENING. I ask you, WUWT?
Listen up, I hope that the New Zealand government allows him to stay on compassionate grounds (the wife and kid) but to make it clear that it is not due to his bogus claim.
Kiribati was among some of the coral islands featured on this peer reviewed paper.
There are many other reasons why these islanders might believe that sea level rise is their problem when it might not be.
Well spotted. The same could be said for Australia (in the past). In fact the same could be said for nearly every other government including the USA, UK, Germany et al. Why don’t they open their immigration gates and allow these atoll island people open access into their countries? They scream about climate change and yet are ready to watch these people ‘drown’. What a bunch of forked tongue charlatans.
When these things get to court the facts are forced out. Whenever that happens the claimants will fail. Facts are a stubborn problem.
Could this be an intelligent but subtle stunt to challenge the AGW crowd and have a legal decision that actually contradicts or rather dismisses the alarmist misinfo. In MSM this will/could be another way to reveal the deception or at least highlight duplicity.. Granting refugee status, legally, will set a presedent that will cause govts to ‘count the cost’, how this will hurt them financially. They will then be between a rock and a hard place. Do they carry on running with AGW and accept refugees or , essentially contradict the political AGW movement and state legally that AGW does not exist to avoid the potentially huge cost of accomodating a potentially huge influx of refugees. Whatever the reason for claiming refugee status, and whatever the reality, it does bring an interesting challenge to the AGW politics that could show them up, big time, with legal backing so to speak…
@warren in New Zealand – A question if you have the time.
Since his children were born in New Zealand, are they then citizens of the country? So it is only Mr. Teitiota who is subject to deportation?
Thanks for your time.
“philjourdan says:
May 13, 2014 at 4:21 am”
Immigration in this region is difficult but on this however, like NZ’ers in Aus, any children of NZ’ers in Aus are NZ’ers and, therefore, temporary residents. I am sure it is the same in NZ. His children would not be NZ citizens. Mr. Teitiota is not a NZ citizen (Wife status unknown), so, as is usual, his children are also “classed” as non-NZ’er temporary residents. The children may be able to stay, because they are not adults, but he would have to leave and apply, for residency, off-shore. I do believe he would not be granted a visa. He’s been down that path and failed.
@Patrick – thanks for the explanation. I was curious given the rules in the US.
Warren in New Zealand,
RE: “…he was born there (in Kiribati), he moved to New Zealand, overstayed his visa, married, had children here, and does not want to go back.”
I stand corrected. And I repeat: The finding that his case is “fundamentally misconceived” is correct. He has to figure out how to pursue citizenship elsewhere through legal avenues..
The irony of his situation is not lost on me. One doesn’t choose one’s place of birth, and if he’s become aware of his tenuous existence on Kiribati thanks to the incessant drumbeat of climate alarmists, his instinct to relocate (imo) is no less justifiable, even if the science wrong.
This is brilliant! We need more of these “climate refugees” to start pouring into all the countries who allow the warmist cult free reign to do and say as they please. Then the governments will have to explain why they wont allow theses refugees in, if they truly believe their own “science” 🙂
Greg says, “it’s strange, you’d think that the NZ govt. and justice system, having given carte blanche to their weather service to misreport weather data to inflate evidence of global warming would be ready accept the ‘refugees’ they have created.”
I grinned from ear to ear on that one. Can you imagine! They let that one dude and his family stay as a “refugee,” then guess what would happen? People would flock to New Zealand, ready to take up residence in the Land o’ Hobbits. It would be a major crisis as floods of poor third world people started showing up on floating planks, desperate to be rescued from “climate change” yet really just wanting to be rescued from their poor living conditions. Let us just see what nation makes this mistake first. It appears New Zealand is smarter than some are bound to be.
Public policy BS only goes so far.
When you think about it these global warming screamers are getting themselves into a mess. I am thinking about all those illegal immigrants making their wary from North Africa and into Southern Europe. Why don’t they simply claim: “it’s hotter than we thought, let us in. The IPCC said the heat is hotter than previously thought.” Or “We need more money to help us with the heat of the Sahara / the equator. The IPCC said it’s unprecedented and we believe them, let us in.”
They will not let them in on that reason, so why bang on about climate? Money.
Does anyone actually have details on a documented climate refugee post 1990?
I don’t think an El Nino will cause a drop in sea levels like the last ice age. So that argument has gone west. If this was the case, then they could anchor their boats outside the reef. I think the argument about climate change being the mentor for refugees, is weak as P. But that island if you Google it is overpopulated.
Bill Parsons says:
May 13, 2014 at 6:00 am
The irony of his situation is not lost on me. One doesn’t choose one’s place of birth, and if he’s become aware of his tenuous existence on Kiribati thanks to the incessant drumbeat of climate alarmists, his instinct to relocate (imo) is no less justifiable, even if the science wrong.
The irony is well recognised, he has lived in New Zealand for a long time, from what I have been able to find, well before AGW became the strident voice it has amongst the Pacific Island.
He had a working visa, which can be for up to 2 years, he overstayed, which is not uncommon here, married, had children.
Now that Immigration have caught up with him, which they seem to do eventually here, there are 4 million of us, it can take the Govt a bit of time :), he is being deported for the correct legal reasons. Morally, I’m on his side, he has a family here, he is working, or was prior to this situation, but as we have found here, allow one person to stay, the next 100 all claim the same reason.
I may or may not agree with New Zealands Immigration policy, but it is how things are legally. Once you start making exceptions, where does it stop? And yes, we could make changes to the Immigration Laws, but any hopeful Government here treads very cautiously around changing Immigration Policy.
His Climate Refugee claim has been disallowed, he has no defence to being an overstayer, if he had pursued his claim on moral or humanitarian grounds, family, lived here, working etc, he would have possibly had a better chance, although I believe from reports, that he had tried all of those previously.
“Warren in New Zealand says:
May 13, 2014 at 11:04 pm”
Criteria to meet immigration requirements has been tightened since my experiences circa 1995-2002 (Dealing with immigration at one level or other). I didn’t know he held a working visa, which could have been extended a further year to 3 years which is common (Certainly true in my case). Given where he is from I suspect his visa was for a very specific purpose, such as fruit picking? But that is very seasonal. I had to hold a permanent residents (PR) visa for 2 years before I qualified for citizenship (C). It is now 5 years as a PR before C. The whole process was very expensive, cost me about NZ$5000 just for the PR visa application fee and consultant. He may not have been able to afford a consultant and apply via normal channels and just assumed that being married and with children would secure his residency status (It certainly seems that way). I certainly know the stress he is feeling, but I think he is trying to pull a fast one, and it looks like he’s failed at every attempt.
I had to deal with immigration here in Australia as a New Zealand citizen, and I would not wish that on anyone!
Yeah well if you marry a British citizen in UK, one can stay. But it can be a rort, with women being paid large amounts of money to go into a marriage that is in name only. One bloke was arrested on his wedding day in England and deported on the spot. They were not romanically involved and the woman owned up then asked ‘can I keep the money?’