Guest essay by Eric Worrall
WUWT has reported several times about the ongoing story of the failed Kiribati Climate Refugee. Now the BBC has done a followup story, about Mr. Teitiota’s allegedly sad circumstances, now that he is back in Kiribati. But not everything is as it seems.
Mr Teitiota, his wife and three children are staying at his brother-in-law’s house. It’s a basic cinder block box with no chairs and virtually no modern conveniences.
He has two penned pigs in his yard and a pack of stray dogs scratch themselves under the palm trees. He warns me about the brown dog. That’s the dangerous one. And he doesn’t like it being so close to his kids.
The family relies on rainwater for drinking. The tank is too small, so they struggle to get enough. It’s a bitter irony in a place that’s constantly threatened with inundation.
They pump water from the ground too, but it’s filthy. The groundwater here is just below the surface, which makes it vulnerable to contamination from humans and animals above.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34674374
OK, so far so good. But then the BBC makes the following startling statement;
Mr Kidd sees politics in the mix. There are potentially hundreds of millions of people in low-lying areas that could be affected by sea level rises. He wonders if wealthy countries fear that cases like Mr Teitiota’s could turn climate migration from a trickle to a raging torrent.
But there hasn’t been a dramatic exodus just yet. The New Zealand immigration department sets aside 75 places a year in a lottery for migrants from Kiribati, and at the moment it can’t fill them.
President Anote Tong suggests that is because things aren’t desperate enough yet.
Whats up with that? If the alleged climate hardships of life in Kiribati are such a non issue, that Kiribati people can’t even be bothered to apply for lottery places to migrate to New Zealand, what possibly justification could there have ever been for the ridiculous waste of time and resources, represented by Mr. Teitiota’s application for climate refugee status? How can there be any doubt that the New Zealand High Court made the right decision, to reject Mr. Teitiota’s bogus climate refugee claim?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The damning truth about foreign aid: British millions meant for Syrian refugees are squandered by the UN on administration and staff costs.
That probably goes for all aid given to the UN.
I bought my first Porsche from an administrator working for the British Heart Foundation, the car cost new £48,000 in 2005, I no longer give to charities.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301120/
A nice cherry-picked anecdote from the BBC. Along with wild and unsubstantiated claims about “risk of inundation”, assume to be from the sea. And some feeble attempt to pull on heartstrings.
And this irrelevant but detailed piece of junk appears, within a week of the release of TWO major papers on the gain of ice in Two papers which appear to have been CENSORED by the BBC.
Ice gain which clearly has a critical implication for assessment of potential changes in sea level rise.
It can not have escaped the BBC’s attention that they were almost the only media channel on the planet that did not inform the public of the very significant NASA announcement.
At least I have not yet found any reference from them. And I have searched using a broad range of search terms almost every day.
Even Russia Today, the Guardian, Slate and Al Jazeera have covered the NASA Ice Gain story.
Although admittedly, some articles seem to have found a way to conceal or reverse the conclusions of the study.
This slate article beggars belief. Apparently the study which clearly concludes that Antarctica is gaining ice, actual in reality tells us that it is losing ice. Maybe we should all just give up with these idiots. Its hopeless.,,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html
Apologies for my repetition of “two papers”. I keep forgetting that in this venue proofreading must be done before posting. And its been a long day.
So, apparently, Mr Teitiota has not applied for immigration to New Zealand. He must not want to go there that badly. Could it be that someone put him up to seeking refugee status as a test case?
If memory serves, he over-stayed (And had children BORN in NZ). In my experience with immigration over the years, in particular Australia and New Zealand, that is “frowned” upon. Break your visa conditions at your peril.
The only true wilderness is between a Greenies ears.
Re; “The fact is the people are right to want to leave the mess they’ve built themselves, not because the atoll is sinking but because they’ve made it unlivable”.
Such islands are often sinking under the weight of rising debt and obesity.
Here’s one example – Nauru. Youtube will recommend a heap of similar stories when you have watched this.
Really very sad – and their problems have nothing to do with so-called “climate change”.
It’s a relatively recent syndrome now recognized widely as Merkelmania
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/k-in-compensation-to-wife-killer-held-in-detention-fair-human-rights-commissioner-gillian-triggs/story-fni0cx12-1227282000051
Very rare indeed among people singing for their supper in the marketplace which might be the obvious clue for a lasting cure.
Sea water washes over the lands in Tarawa but not from sinking islands. Large seasonal tides, winds and tropical storms make it a hazardous place to live. How can you put down a well when the sea fills it or a dangerous bacterial load has built up from misuse?
The more the reality of attempting to live on an unsuitable overcrowded low lying atoll is investigated the less of climate change is revealed and more of political incompetence. Tarawa is a disaster of their own making in waiting. The people there will have to move elsewhere to survive. Even if the sea dropped a metre that predicament remains.
See this for a fuller description of life there. There is an explanation also of how the lagoon became a cesspit via good works.
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/inundation
oops.
What a tear jerker in support for poor Mr Teitiota. The fact is this Mr Teitiota deserves every bit of the life he is living now. We don’t need the likes of him in New Zealand. This idiot was violent to his fellow workers and sexually assaulted and abused female workers.
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/assault-claims-against-climate-change-refugee-2015092314#axzz3qrO8qVdA
My comments were in no way advocacy for Ioane Teitiota; if he hadn’t argued climate change administrative discretion may have had a different outcome.
Kiripati has been aggressively pursuing the line that they are victims of climate change when the truth is mismanagement. The Wellington Diocese of the Anglican Church in NZ has a march planned in their support which I am going to have to oppose.
A lesson here is if the politicians-in-charge substitute advocacy and hysteria for reason, based on flawed models and turn off energy sources and there is a real downturn happening or beginning there may be disastrous consequences. Kiribati can cry that the wolf is at the door while their inaction to alleviate their outgrown resources gives false hope while they await the inevitable. Cries for the wrong reasons are not heard.
For background on how atolls are formed by rising seas and thus are in no danger from rising seas, you might enjoy my posts:
and
For a discussion of Kiribati, see
For me, the underlying problem is that when atoll populations intersect with modern medicine, overpopulation is not far off. Now, in a resource-rich part of the globe this can be accommodated. See Hong Kong and Singapore as examples.
But the atolls have nothing but alkaline coral sand. No inexpensive energy sources. No iron, or metal of any kind. No real topsoil. Extremely limited flora and fauna. Rainwater only for fresh water, and that rainwater in a fragile lens of fresh water floating on underlying sea water.
Add to that the inevitable poverty of extremely isolated island folks with little chance to produce anything of value, much less of export value, and you can start to get a sense of the intractable nature of the problem. Bob Dylan said “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose”, but it’s also true that when you got nothing, you got nothing to use …
I’m not saying that there are no solutions. I’m saying that it is a wicked problem, with lots of hidden pitfalls. For example, the people of the atolls used to use “toilet beaches”. They’d go down at low tide, do their business, and the incoming tide would wash it clean. Worked fine for thousands of years.
Then the melanin-deficient folks came on their boats and they were horrified. They advised that people should dig pit latrines, as it was more hygienic.
… Bear in mind that the entire water wealth of the atoll is stored in the lens of fresh water underneath the atoll.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/atoll_xsect_1001271.jpg
… and bear in mind that the island is composed of porous coral sand and rubble. Now think about pit latrines and rain and the water lens … like I said, hidden pitfalls.
Finally, it is a mistake to think that the problem is lack of intelligence as someone claimed above. The dozens of i-Kiribati people I’ve known have generally been sharp, witty, insightful folks. They are not adverse to work, and many i-Kiribati guys work as seamen on ships around the globe. Much of the economy of Kiribati is made up of these repatriated funds.
The problem is that there is just so little to work with—so little money, so little energy, so little arable land, so little water, so little anything … and so many, many people.
Regards to all,
w.
NGO to build some outhouses the float XYZ yards offshore?
[Technically, the X-Y position will put the outhouses further off shore, but that Z change can only put them “up” shore. .mod]
While acknowledging that New Zealand is offering these possibilities for potential migrants of Kiribati and whole-heartedly supporting it, it must not be forgotten in this discussion that information channels are nowhere near as luxurious as in our Westernised world.
I have had a great many conversations about climate change with I-Kiribati – on Tarawa. I have heard about land that the Kiribati government has bought in Fiji, but never have I been told about these possibilities New Zealand is offering.
Why not?
Away from personal experiences. There are very few newspapers (currently 6, if I’m not mistaken). They are very short, published once a week, and reach very few people: some 800 issues printed for over 100’000 I-Kiribati living on 21 islands, but distributed only on Tarawa island. What do the people on the outer islands do? Mind you, they have no internet access or mobile phone coverage, except again on Tarawa and Kiritimati islands.
People in Kiribati see climate changes with their own eyes. But they have very little access to information about respective debates and discussions on an international level. Also, even if they were to move, it is not just common knowledge that they need to go to ministries and other – foreign even if locally present – institutions (locally: they are ALL on Tarawa).
Further on that thought, imagine how much it takes for someone to leave the ground their family and people have called their home for as far back as they can remember and as their stories go. To see that ground become polluted and swallowed by the sea. To leave from an island home and society to a Westernised world that is strikingly different – in numberless ways.
It makes me quite sad that most of the very little the world knows about Kiribati is so mis- or under-informed, badly connotated, and sometimes, like here, atrociously presented. Set up a google alert for ‘Kiribati’. You won’t be flooded with emails and you will quickly see how some new publications present climate change as not at all the great threat that it is (or denied…!), while the rest are reports of new floods, broken roads, sea walls, buildings, polluted water wells, etc. – actual, real effects.
I want to refrain from commenting on political views on [i]migration and on Mr Teitiota’s case. But I would like to encourage people to keep looking into climate change issues and of [e]migration motors in the Pacific. There are many good, informed and informative comments here, from people who invest a little bit of time into forming their argument and into informing others. The opposite is inexcusable:
Calling climate change issues in Kiribati a “non issue” is simply wrong, stupid and dangerous.
Kain te namwakaina November 14, 2015 at 3:45 am
Kain, I’m sorry but you seem totally uninformed about atolls. Atolls are FORMED by sea level rise, they are not threatened by sea level rise. Darwin discovered that a century and a half ago, but it appears that the information has not yet made it to Kiribati. See “Floating Islands” and “The Irony, It Burns” for a discussion of these issues.
Kiribati does have real problems. However, they are not caused by climate change. Instead, they are caused by a combination of overpopulation, overfishing, pollution (of both fresh and salt water), and coral mining.
Thinking that the very real and pressing problems in Kiribati are caused by climate change is what is “simply wrong, stupid, and dangerous”. By pointing at the wrong cause, claiming it’s the climate ensures that the true causes will not be remedied. See “So Many People … So Little Rain” for an investigation of more of these issues.
My best to you,
w.
Willis Eschenbach.
Author of “Floating Islands”, “The Irony, It Burns”, and “So Many People … So Little Rain”.
All posts on the internet.
None peer-reviewed.
All lack references that back up his argumentation.
Yet all are used as counter-arguments in climate change discussions such as this.
For more information, have a quick look at this:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
There are literally thousands of other, scientific publications that meet the above criteria:
Published in peer-reviewed, scientifically renowned books and journals, not just online.
Have plenty of other sources they refer to and rely on.
And the vast, overwhelming majority present very coherent picture of global and local climate change that contradicts greatly with what is spread by Willis Eschenbach.
Mr Eschenbach, have you got any of these? Of this second type? That even remotely tackle climate change?
You are absolutely right to feel addressed by my post when I talk about “wrong, stupid and dangerous” ways of talking about such issues. You are spreading misinformation. In what or whose interest I wonder?
I have zero respect for you.
Kain te namwakaina says:
I have zero respect for you.
Willis Eschenbach is a published, peer reviewed author. All you have is your opinion.
So I have zero respect for you.
Kain te namwakaina November 14, 2015 at 10:04 am
That would be me.
Ah, I see. You’ve fallen prey to the idea that what is important is not the truth, but who said it and where it was said. This allows you to denigrate my work without showing a single thing wrong with it.
My goodness, you just proved that you didn’t even read my posts. The first post cited says at the bottom:
In the second post, I cited the Sierra Club article that started it all, along with citing “The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific”, by Arthur Webb and Paul Kench. I linked to my 2004 journal paper on the subject (not a blog post, I note) along with the study of Amatuku atoll.
In the third post, I cited the 1957 NAS report on Kiribati regarding the effects of drought on the islands.
Meanwhile, you’ve provided references to … to … well, absolutely nothing. And despite showing up empty-handed you claim that my posts “lack references”? Say what? Someone is lacking references here, and it is not me.
Indeed they have, and they should be. You haven’t found a single error in them, nor has anyone else.
Yes, I know that there is an entire cottage industry based on hating on me. Near as I can tell, Poptech, the guy you linked to, sits around and throws darts at my picture. He’s like you, all hat and no cattle. If you look around, you’ll find lots more of the same kind of ad hominem arguments. They attack my style, they attack my history, they attack my education and my accomplishments. In fact, they attack anything but my science … just like you are doing. Me, I don’t mind it when my work is discussed on all those sites—they are so foolish they don’t seem to notice that all their posts do is drive more traffic to read my work …
So many words … so few references. For a man who whines about my references, you are curiously short of them yourself. If you were to cite just one, we could have a clue what you are talking about. As it is, who knows what you are referring to?
Since you haven’t identified what you are bitching about, how on earth would I know if I have any of them? You’ve lost the plot entirely, asking me if I have some unidentified scientific study …
Seriously, are ad hominem attacks the limit of your repertoire? Look, if you are such an expert on the islands, SHOW US. You could start by quoting and identifying the errors you seem to think I’ve made, and we can discuss them. Because just waving your hands and saying I’m bad and wrong just reveals your immaturity. If you want to discuss the issues, I’m your man … but so far, all you’ve done is sling mud.
Take a number and stand in line. You are not the first anonymous internet popup who has been unable to attack my scientific claims and has ended up babbling inanities and making ad hominem attacks … nor will you be the last.
Here’s the way science works. I put my scientific claims out there, along with the logic, data, math, references and code to back them up. People try to prove that those claims are incorrect. The part you seem to have missed is this:
It’s not about me.
It doesn’t matter who makes a scientific claim. It could be a genius, it could be a janitor. It could be a PhD, it could be a layman. None of that matters There is only one question worth asking—are my scientific claims valid? Not whether my education is valid. Not whether my credentials are impressive. Not whether the claims are peer-reviewed.
The only issue that makes any difference is whether the claims are scientifically defensible, or whether they are falsifiable. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Not your education or your credentials. Not my education or my credentials. Not whether the claims are peer-reviewed or where they were printed. The validity of the scientific claims is all that matters.
The more you attack me instead of attacking my science, the stupider you look, and the lower your reputation falls. And since to date you’ve ignored my science and done nothing but attack me, I fear that your attempt to bite my ankles has only damaged you, not me.
Be clear. If you want to point out what you think are errors in what I wrote, I’m happy to discuss any of them. That’s how science progresses, and like you and everyone else, I certainly could be wrong.
So if you wish to disagree with my ideas, I’m your man. I’ve given a host of references, and I have plenty more, but to date you have none, and you could remedy that to give us something to discuss.
But if you just want to continue to bad-mouth me without adding one iota of scientific value to the conversation, as you have done to date … well, that’s up to you. I’d advise against it, but hey, that’s just me.
w.
Willis, it is not an ad hominem argument to make the factual statement that you are not a scientist and then support that with extensive evidence. The only thing I am driving traffic to is the truth.
Poptech,
“Scientist” is a very vague term. It is nothing like “engineer”.
I don’t like the ‘scientist’ label because some dictionaries define it as something like: ‘One who practices science’. By some definitions, anyone can be a scientist.
I would much rather confine the definition to someone who has a degree in one of the hard sciences, or possessing an engineering degree, or someone who is a published, peer reviewed author.
That’s just MHO. (And I know the tale of Sisyphus, and I know I won’t change the language.) But “scientist” implies being an ‘authority’, and sometimes they just aren’t — like Bill Nye, the Science Guy. ☺ Or Tyson the astronomer, pontificating on ‘climate’.
Poptech November 15, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Thanks, Poptech. It is an ad hominem argument when you attack me personally in lieu of attacking my scientific claims. And please note that not only have you done that, but Kain te namwakaina has used your page to do exactly the same thing, attack me instead of attacking my scientific claims.
If you could find anything wrong with my science, I’m sure both you and Kain would talk about that. But since you can’t, instead you whine about trivia and futilely try to convince people that I’m not a scientist … during which time, the citation count for my peer-reviewed publications continues to rise …
Regarding traffic, when you put up a page full of hatred like you’ve done, people who see it have to wonder “Who is this eeeevil mastermind Willis who is worth devoting an entire web page to”? Intrigued, they come to read my work. So you have my thanks. As they say in Hollywood, and as you and many others seem to have never realized,
My regards to you, and thanks for all the folks you refer to my work,
w.
Willis you seem confused, as my argument about your not being a scientist is not related to any other argument you are making thus it cannot be an “ad hominem”. The truth has set many people free as they falsely believed you were a credentialed scientist. Now when they search the Internet for who you are my page comes up right at the top as I promised your fanboys. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22willis+eschenbach%22
You are quite welcome for the help in setting the record straight on who you are.
Eschenbach 2004?
Have you read any reactions to that paper?
“A recent paper (Eschenbach, 2004), describing observational data from Funafuti Atoll,
Tuvalu, argued that Tuvalu was not experiencing increased sea-level rise. However,
this paper contained a number of inconsistencies and errors, some of which are
identified and discussed in this note. There are seven primary areas of concern:
-a best estimate of sea-level rise that is biased low and with unrealistically low uncertainty,
-a misunderstanding concerning the meaning and use of asymptotic analysis,
-problems with the analysis of sea-level rise from surrounding locations,
-problems with the analysis of steric sea levels,
-a misunderstanding of the context of present sea-level rise within the late Holocene period (the last few thousand years),
-a simplistic view of the effects of sediment transport, and
-unsubstantiated and/or unreferenced claims concerning past and present temperatures and sea level.” (Hunter 2004)
Go read some other people who have cited this paper. See a pattern?
By the way, I know that Eschenbach responded two years later to that publication. But again, same spiel. Read up on the reactions (scientific responses, not blog posts and online supports).
Kain te namwakaina,
-a best estimate of sea-level rise that is biased low…
What you’ve posted is a differnce of opinion. Nothing more.
When Michael Mann was corrected for wrong information, he was forced to publish a Corrigendum in the journal Science. Willis has never done that. So all I see is a few chihuahuas impotently snapping at his pant leg.
If you have something substantive, post it. So far, you’ve got nothin’.
Have you read the paper? Or any other scientifically >acclaimed< material?
Have you read any of the stuff that was linked or in these posts? Eschenbach's or mine?
The moment climate change becomes an opinion when there is overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn't…
Kain te namwakaina says:
Have you read the paper? Or any other scientifically >acclaimed< material? Have you read any of the stuff that was linked or in these posts? Eschenbach's or mine?
Yes, I have. Why do you feel the need to deflect?
Next: Tuvalu, the islands just SW of Kiribati, show no change in sea level:
http://www.john-daly.com/press/tuvalu.gif
There is no ‘acceleration’ in global sea levels, no matter how much you want to believe it. Here is a good place to start learning the facts.
You write:
The moment climate change becomes an opinion when there is overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn’t…
There could hardly be a more meaningless statement posted on this site. It could mean literally anything to anyone. As I said above:
If you have something substantive, post it. So far, you’ve got nothin’.
You are right. I have got nothing myself. All I can do is make references to people who do.
Let me see. Oh here, found some 13’950 studies. Surely at least a couple of them provide some valid conclusions? Is that something? If not, I ask, in all honesty, what else is needed?
That’s quite a bunch of researchers, at a rather large number of institutions. To question how scientific researching and publishing works and whether or not these processes are independent and neutral, that is all incredibly good and very much necessary. That is basically why we have a peer-review system. It is certainly not without flaws, and in many cases (very much so also in other disciplines…) I wonder how the heck it could come to a publication. I do admit that without a moment’s hesitation. But surely SOME of these 13’950 studies were still conducted in an independent, neutral, scientifically sound way, right?
By the way: 13’950 vs 24.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Original%20study/originaltsudy.html
Have a look at it, please. Methodology, references, it’s all there.
Read some of the referenced material too.
This should probably be on the title page of this web space…
OMG
Not this “rejects global warming” over again, please.
You even managed to cite a moron who cites Oreskes. LOL
Please stop humiliating yourself.
Very well responded to the issue at hand, sir.
Almost… scientifically.