U.N. trots out phony sinking island claims after rejection of it’s exaggerated climate alarmist report

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The United Nations trotted out phony claims of sinking pacific islands after the COP24 climate conference failed to adopt the IPCC grossly exaggerated October climate report alleging global impacts from a 1.5 degree C temperature rise.

clip_image002

 

The L. A. Times published a story presenting scientifically disproved claims of sinking island assertions which were supposed to show the terrible consequence of rejecting the exaggerated IPCC climate report which was based on flawed and failed climate models.

clip_image004

The Times story noted that:

“Smaller nations, some already losing land to the sea, insisted on the stronger language endorsing the IPCC report, which said that if greenhouse gas emissions continued unabated, the atmosphere would warm as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial averages by 2040, worsening droughts, wildfires, sea level rise and poverty. Global temperatures have already risen an average of about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels.

But the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked endorsing the report. They only wanted the conference document to “note” the October study.

The negotiations, normally bureaucratic affairs, turned contentious. One by one, representatives of a dozen countries spoke out against the larger nations’ refusal to accept the report from the panel considered to be the world’s most definitive body on climate change.

The small island nations’ voices emerged with impassioned speeches filling a void.”

“Small island states and poor nations already suffering from sea level rise and other global warming effects took a stand at the U.N. climate change conference over wealthier nations’ relative lack of urgency.”

“Ian Fry, the delegate from Tuvalu, said his low-lying island group between Hawaii and Australia was “deeply disappointed that one group of parties could not accept the consensus in the room.” Tuvalu is already shrinking, with many residents moving to New Zealand.”

The Times ignored the results of scientific studies which clearly showed that Pacific island groups are not sinking and in fact are growing in stark contrast to the phony alarmist claims of sinking islands.

clip_image006

Specifically the studies of the Tuvalu island groups showed that:

“Here we present the first comprehensive national-scale analysis of the transformation in physical land resources of the Pacific atoll nation Tuvalu, situated in the central western Pacific (Supplementary Note 1). Comprising 9 atolls and 101 individual reef islands, the nation is home to 10,600 people, 50% of whom are located on the urban island of Fogafale, in Funafuti atoll28. We specifically examine spatial differences in island behaviour, of all 101 islands in Tuvalu, over the past four decades (1971–2014), a period in which local sea level has risen at twice the global average (Supplementary Note 2).Surprisingly, we show that all islands have changed and that the dominant mode of change has been island expansion, which has increased the land area of the nation. Results are used to project future landform availability and consider opportunities for a vastly more nuanced and creative set of adaptation pathways for atoll nations.”

clip_image008

Other additional scientific studies have also shown that Pacific islands groups are not sinking but climate alarmist continue to misrepresent and conceal the fact that such claims are unsupported by scientific data.

clip_image010

This latest article from the L. A. Times is just another example demonstrating that the papers is conducting a scientifically unsupported politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda campaign devoid of any connection to scientific reality.

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “U.N. trots out phony sinking island claims after rejection of it’s exaggerated climate alarmist report

  1. The genitive case of the neuter pronoun “it”, is written “its” and signifies ownership.
    The composite word, “it’s”, is a foreshortening of the phrase “it is”. Its meaning does not fit correctly into the title of this article.

    • With the overwhelming misuse of bring and take by educated people, from grade school students through PHD’s in English and the resulting bombardment from news “Hosts” hourly on TV there is little hope of correcting the incorrect use of it’s for its. And the proper use of bring/take is as simple as “You ask people to bring things to the place you are, and you take things to the place you are going. ” I have not found a single citation on the internet that it is proper english to bring thing to the place you are going. Yet News hosts, Children’s TV shows, science documentaries, even public figures use bring instead of take. It is rare to hear the proper use. They are achieving their goal of changing our language.

      • How about this hypothetical phone conversation: “Hi Mary, this is Bob, remember that book I borrowed? When I visit your home tomorrow, I will bring it with me.”

        In this instance Bob is saying that he will be bringing the book from the place that he is presently at, to deliver it to a place that he will be going to.

        Now, replay that conversation with “. . . I will take it with me” at the end, and see if that doesn’t sound like awkward, incorrect speech.

        Bottom line: the English language is very flexible, and not bound by rigid rules of use as long as the meaning of the language is clear. Just consider the actual beauty of the use of the word “twister” to refer to a tornado.

        • Not sure what you are trying to show here. In your example “I will bring it with me” bring is the proper old usage as a result of the helper verb “will”. The sentence is written to show what the state of affairs “will be” not what they are at present. Thus, once you “are” there you “will have brought” it with you. “I will take it with me” sounds awkward and incorrect because it is.

        • Actually, in the case of “When I visit your home tomorrow, I will bring it with me…” it sounds like Bob will be bringing Mary’s home with him. The sentence should read, “When I visit your home tomorrow, I will bring the book with me.”

        • All right, you English verbiage “whiz kids”, ….. which one of you think that you can write the following sentence grammatically correct, …. to wit:

          (written as if I was speaking it)

          There are three twos in the English language”. 😊 😊

          [But the mods now know their Englitz to: Their oar moor than one weigh to count the three two’s fore every five words that come up. .mod]

        • ” the English language […] not bound by rigid rules of use

          Slavishly following proper grammar will often produce stilted and uncomfortable sentences. Knowing the rules are more like guidelines and deliberately breaking them in carefully selected places will create smoother reading. Eg, the famous “to go boldly”.

      • “The essential difference between these two words is that bring implies movement towards someone or something: Bring your instrument with you when you come over. Whereas take implies movement away from someone or something: Take your belongings with you when you’re leaving.”

        • Vasey, you posted, similar to others: “. . . take implies movement away from someone or something”.

          To which I will simply provide this reply:
          “Your daily life is your temple and your religion. When you enter into it take with you your all.”— Khalil Gibran, the third-best-selling poet of all time, and no slouch at proper use of the English language (what sense of motion is implied by the phrase “enter into it”?)

      • “Bring” indicates motion towards you. “Take” indicates motion away from you.

        Bring your children to my house, when you come over, but take them home, when you leave.
        _____________________________________________________

        It’s = It is

        It’s getting late.
        It’s tough to learn English composition.
        It’s a cold day in hell when the issue of global warming goes away.
        It’s never too late to start an exercise program.

        Its = belongs to it

        The dog lost its bone.
        Truth is its own reward.
        The UN trots out its phony claims again.

        The difference is one little apostrophe. . .

        Something this small … ‘ … makes all the difference.

        • “Baby, It’s cold outside.”?
          (Sorry)
          There are rules of grammar. Adhering to them and insisting others do the same only helps in communicating accurately what is intended.
          On the flip side, picking at a mistake and conflating that mistake to imply the rest of what they said isn’t worth considering leaves the realm of grammatical accuracy and enters the realm of logical fallacy.
          And of course, there is the realm of “figures of speech”. “Figures of speech”, when used with intent, aren’t just “picturesque” or comparisons. They can also be departures from the rules of grammar to call attention to what is said.
          “Ain’t” ain’t a word.”
          Was that wrong?

    • The Warmists always do this – they get some numbskull pratt to write the first post about some trivial typo error, to divert attention from the post itself. Such people should be kicked into touch, and never allowed back here.

      R

      • Actually I for one happen to be a farmer sick to death of “warmists” and this properly dead horse they keep beating while I watch my growing season trending shorter with later springs and earlier frosts. That doesn’t mean I can’t also be tired of the widespread ignorance of what used to be commonly known rules of grammar taught in schools. It isn’t just the climate propaganda being taught in schools today that is a problem, it’s what isn’t being taught.

      • Scientific-minded folks should worry just as much about the precision of their everyday language as they do about the precision of their math. Otherwise, it seems hypocritical to demand that others pay close attention to details, and be as open about the criticism of it. [okay, how many spelling errors did I make or wrong keys did I hit there?]

    • Paul sez:
      The genital case of the neutered pronoun it ???
      Where did you get your edumacation,
      in pubic school?

      If people can understand the sentence,
      and they did, except for you, it seems,
      then a small error is okay — don’t you
      have anything else to nitpick?

      That was pretty low for the first comment
      on a new article, Paul — sort of like mud on a
      pair of new shoes — the article is the new shoes,
      and your comment is the mud.

    • True; its – possessive, it’s – contraction of IT IS.
      Not sure why so many people get this wrong, after all they presumably don’t write her’s or our’s, so why it’s?

  2. Never, I repeat never, consider the LA Times as a source of honest, factual information. They’ve been know for decades to have hidden agendas.

    The newspaper (hardcopy) is still good for dog training, both the potty type and the fetching type, and for lining the bottoms of bird cages.

    • The paper version of the LATimes also serves as a decent source of reduced carbon to start a fire in the fireplace.
      Recommend you start with the front page section first, then the opinion section, and then work back to the funnies section, feeding into the fire the most worthless sections first.
      But then ask yourself, “Why the Hell am I paying for this propaganda rag anyway?”

      • Also, it works well as toilet tissue, if you find that you forgot to buy the good stuff on your last store visit — just tear it into thin strips, and crumple the strips repeatedly to soften it up a bit and add some absorbent texture [obviously speaking from experience].

    • I had always thought it rather revealing that the LA times home subscriptions are delivered along with a copy of “CHINA DAILY” news paper.
      I cancelled my subscription about 2 years ago.

    • Ah, but is it really a HIDDEN agenda? I mean, they don’t really keep it a secret that they favor Socialism and progressive politics.

      ~_~

    • Agreed, as for most Laemstream Media “hard copies,” but they could save a lot of time, resources and money by simply not bothering to print that crap (no pun intended) they put on it before it gets used for the purpose it is most suited for.

    • It’s a disgusting shame that LAT continues such blatant anti-intellectual anti-scientific publishing, given that a true genius physician (billionaire) recently bought the paper with the promise to bring the standards up from the years of turmoil. Dr. Patrick Soon-shiong is not even close to the mark thus far if such drivel continues to appear on the pages of that rag.

  3. I presume the comic national dresses were for added PR and political impact.

    I’ll bet they didn’t travel on the plane from Tuvalu dressed like that, which is one of the many hundreds of planes delegates to the conference flew in…….that are causing their island to ‘sink’.

    The irony is rich.

  4. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces68496.html
    Tuvalu commemorative issue of a floated non-floating British Commonwealth coin.
    Gods of Olympus Obverse Lettering: QUEEN ELIZABETH II 2oz 999 SILVER 2014 TUVALU 2 DOLLARS
    Reverse Lettering: ZEUS

    This is odd because Macron claimed that title of Jupiter, before the Gilets Jaunes.

    Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound — Zeus, the tyrant, was the tragic figure, not Prometheus.
    Zeus’s “beastly defiance of the immortal Prometheus brought doom, upon not only Zeus, but all of the gods of Olympus.” So yes the islands are sinking!

  5. Well done United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait!

    Regarding the picture, I would love one that showed the entire room, so I can see how many of the 22,771 registered participants bothered to attend.

    • You can’t have one. The MSM routinely publish pictures of protests which are cropped so tightly that you would be justified in assuming there are thousands of protesters. In fact there are only the two dozen or so that you see in the image. They are deliberately crammed together into a tight bundle to look like a lot of people.

      So that picture of the islander natives is probably all there was.

  6. Nice when you can use satellite imaging over time to prove a lie. However, I’d like to see that study with more recent pictures from say today or so, to see if the study is still accurate in islands continued expansion, and not stop at 2014. It should be real easy to get the most recent pictures for accurate analysis.

  7. I wonder if they wore their native costumes to dinner in the evening.

    Whilst enjoying, perhaps, a bottle of wine with their meal (that’s 22,000 bottles of wine a night x two weeks = 308,000 bottles of wine) and doubtless a couple of snifters before bed.

    At British prices, say £20 for a half decent bottle of wine = £6,160,000. A couple of shorts of decent whisky or brandy is probably about the same, so a twelve million GBP bar bill!

    That’s $15,594,286.40.

    I’m in the wrong sodding business. Just follow this mob round for a few years and I could retire on a tidy profit.

  8. read any intro geology book, it explains how atolls rise and fall with sea, they have for millions of years.

    • The Maldives are sinking for a very good scientific reason:
      The weight of all the new resorts built there,
      by rich people who obviously have no clue their investments
      will soon be underwater. are causing the islands to sink.

      Those same rich people will then turn the Maldives
      into a scuba resort, where you will need air tanks and fins
      to get into your underwater guest rooms.

      Use gOOgle to look at the new resorts on the Maldives.
      Here’s one picture gallery:
      https://www.dreamingofmaldives.com/maldives-photo-gallery.php

  9. The problem is that you cannot take someone to court for deliberately lying unless fraud is involved. Fraud has to involve a direct monetary connection. Lying to sell neswpapers is not against the law.

    • Asking for huge transfers of money to remediate a demonstrably non-existent condition doesn’t constitute fraud?

      • rocketscientist,

        Yes, extortion masquerading as a protection racket is definitely a crime under US law and punishable with significant jail time. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any US court has jurisdiction over the UN.

        Distorting and lying about the science to justify the extortion is not necessarily a crime, unless it’s deliberate, in which case it rises to a criminal conspiracy. It does seem like this is the case, as the refusal to debate infers consciousness of guilt. To the extent the lying scientists who refuse to debate are subject to American law, the jurisdiction of US courts surely applies and must be exercised.

    • Irony here is Interpol has a RICO version of the US Law from the 1970’s. First the Chinese head disappears then the mainstream did everything to stop Russia taking the post. Either on could have investigate Katowice.
      AGW is definitely racketeering and influence peddling.

  10. Classic ‘shake-down’ they where hopping for a very big pay day , none of which was coming from China or India
    so they keep coming back and asking for the money.

    • Robert I have the same plea to ocean front land owners…..please sell me your worthless land for cheap 🙂

  11. ” … refusal to accept the report from the panel considered to be the world’s most definitive body on climate change.”

    Like so many of the ignorant masses, they refuse to acknowledge that climate science is controversial and that what’s most controversial about it is the agenda driving the political organization that the alarmists consider the most definitive body on the science!

  12. According to NatGeo yesterday, each parrotfish produces as much as five tons of coral sand each year. Islands around coral reefs grow continually if the coral is still alive. They of course do not “float,” but the coral stays close to the surface of the sea because sunlight is the source of energy for the zooxanthellae algae that keeps them alive.

    • Yup. Corals are easily capable of keeping up with even the most radical projections of future sea level rise. As the water column above a given coral reef deepens, the coral grow right along with it. The deepest parts of the coral reef may either die out, or be replaced with deep water tolerant corals.

      And as for parrot fish, that’s an interesting but totally believable stat.

      When I was doing project work in the Bahamas a decade plus ago, I retained an environmental consulting firm that specialized in environmental studies in the Bahamas and the Caribbean to conduct our project environmental analysis. While flying over the incredibly beautiful aquamarine waters of the Bahamas Bank, which occupies much of the sea area interior to the Bahamas archipielego, the lead investigator explained to me that the the entire Bahamas bank consists of coral “sand” excreted by parrot fish over millions of years of chewing on coral reefs, and in places the coral sand is up to 2,000 feet or more thick above the limestone base rock.

      I was flabbergasted to learn that. Of course anyone who has ever dived or snorkeled over a living coral reef can attest to the loud base noise level underwater, all generated by hordes of parrot fish chewing their way through coral skeletons. The cacophony is amazing.

      The notion that coral cannot survive through multiple glaciations and interglacials over the last 2.6 MY is just preposterous … of course the corals adapt just fine to even radical temperature swings in the world’s seas. The fact that live coral reefs exist at all today is testament to that.

  13. … the papers is conducting a scientifically unsupported politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda campaign devoid of any connection to scientific reality.

    Leaving aside the appalling grammar (papers is?), and lack of punctuation…

    …who isn’t?

  14. Maldives need the money to expand a giant runway to take superjumbos for their tourist trade. The secret reason is that the aircraft are needed to evacuate the people on the face of sea rise.

  15. “Many buildings were in at-risk coastal areas, Grafton said.

    “According to preliminary research from NIWA, there are 125,600 buildings and $38 billion of replacement costs within 0-1m of sea level rise and there is near certainty that the sea will rise a further 0.2m to 0.3m in the next 20 years.”

    This was just published in New Zealand’s leading msm. Grafton is an executive with the Insurance Council of NZ.

    I wrote in the comments that it was “sensationalist codswallop” as NZ’s rate of (disputable) SLR would have to at least triple overnight. Of course my comment was not published 🙂

    Regards

    M

  16. What on earth do you expect from Matt Mcgrath?
    The only other major mouthpiece for the utter BS scare and scam crap is Harrabin.
    They are banging on every day relentlessly at the BBC (British bollox corporation).
    Break it up,stop the funding, take away their luxy gravytrain lifestyle and it will stop tomorrow.

    The BBC traded in its precious legacy of objective reporting the moment they became a lying horsetrading organisation protecting nasty protecting paedos like Savile & Harris,then giving air time to specious naturalists like Attenborough and banning people with common sense like Bellamy.

  17. Sociopaths, mass murders, power, control, shaclking and murdering entire populations and endless lies = UN

  18. Well, as long as they are only sinking and not capsizing they have time to leave.
    I’m sure the UN nations saying this will welcome them with open arms.

  19. “… already losing… ”
    “… already risen…”
    “… already suffering…”
    “… already shrinking…”

    ALREADY?

    Except they aren’t! The global warming apocalypse is running way behind schedule and the canaries are still merrily chirping down in the coal mines. When one of the happy birds dies of old age, the doomsayers desperately shout: “Look! It is ALREADY happening” But nothing is happening, and you can feel their manic desperation for something horrible.

    When Sarah Connors spoke this way, they locked her up! They didn’t give her a country to run or op-eds in the New York Times!

      • Hate to break it to you, Jeff, but the Terminator movies are fiction…just like the man-made climate change crisis. The most realistic thing about Terminator 2 is that Sarah was locked up for being a dangerous looney. Without evidence, Sarah was a nutcase in her fictional world. In this world, talking like Sarah Connor without evidence gets you a high paying job at the UN!

        It makes you wonder who the crazy ones are!

        • Well no sh*t Sherlock. You brought up a fictional character in a fictional world. But in that fictional world she was right.

          In our world she SHOULD be locked up, along with climate change nutbags.

          In other words, bad example.

  20. The quotation marks in this post are messed up. It’s hard to tell what’s part of the LAT story.

    As far as I can tell, there’s one factual error – Tuvalu is losing area. Does that make that whole article is about “phony sinking island claims”? No. An island can gain area, yet lose height above sea level.

    The DoD funded research looking into the matter of low-lying islands in order to assess risk to military installations. The problem isn’t with loss of area, it’s with a greater frequency of flooding. In addition to infrastructure damage, this poses a risk to freshwater aquifers becoming saline and unusable.

    https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Resiliency/Infrastructure-Resiliency/Vulnerability-and-Impact-Assessment/RC-2334/

    Some islands (and coastal areas) are already experiencing more frequent flooding, but so far it’s mainly a nuisance. How long it takes before whole island populations have to move or make costly adaptations depends on the rate of sea level change.

    Slowing the change gives people more time to adapt.

    Ignoring the evidence and the problems increases risk of negative consequences, both through more rapid climate change and lack of preparation for its results.

    • “The problem isn’t with loss of area, it’s with a greater frequency of flooding. In addition to infrastructure damage, this poses a risk to freshwater aquifers becoming saline and unusable.”

      Are you saying this never happened before, until Humans started driving SUVs?

      “Slowing the change gives people more time to adapt.”

      If a couple millimeters a year is too fast for some people to adapt, then they probably shouldn’t exist.

    • You mean to tell us the US military would fund research that results in the “independent” conclusion that the military needs more money to reduce potential risk to military installations?

      Shocked, I am . . . really shocked to find such activity is going on (with apologies to Captain Louis Renault of Casablanca fame).

      One need only read this statement, taken verbatim from the article at the link you provided, to see what credibility should be assigned to the DoD funded “research” that you referenced:
      “Physics-based numerical oceanographic and hydrogeologic models were used to forecast how future sea-level rise and climate change will affect wave-driven flooding of the island and evaluate its resulting impacts to infrastructure and freshwater resources.”

  21. “Some islands (and coastal areas) are already experiencing more frequent flooding, but so far it’s mainly a nuisance.
    How long it takes before whole island populations have to move or make costly adaptations depends on the rate of sea level change. Slowing the change gives people more time to adapt.
    Ignoring the evidence and the problems increases risk of negative consequences, both through more rapid climate change and lack of preparation for its results.”

    Another one talking utter bollox.

    1/ sea level is NOT accelerating, it’s a steady very slow change…plenty of time to adapt over centuries.
    Check the well known and well placed tidal records for the last 100 years.

    2/ In places like Bangladesh which you might of course cite as an example, it’s well known the reason for the more frequent flooding is man’s inept interventions which cause tidal depositions to change and erode rather than to deposit as per usual.

    3/ you might of course cite the example of Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans or the Seine in Paris or the somerset levels.

    It would be very wonderful and humerous if you did, because they are the very perfection of examples of negligent water management PLUS the consequences of ignoring repeated warnings of impending disaster in case of bad weather.
    In the somerset levels they actually SOLD all the dredging equipment cos they had been told there was no chance of flooding EVAH, cos the climate was going to be drier and hotter for ever…

    I fear you as usual are on hide to nowhere.

    Apart from those obvious examples above, and of course the good old thing about allowing people to have caravan sites or houses in well known flood plains (anyone for the Thames valley folks??!), you have no basis whatsoever for those remarks, cleverly couched in smarmy pseudo scientific language or not as the case may be!

    • “I think I read here at WUWT a decade ago that the Sinking Tuvalu meme had been debunked?”

      A lot of things have been debunked over the millennia, like Astrology. Doesn’t mean people stop trying to use it to bilk people out of money.

Comments are closed.