Fiji slams “selfish” Australia for letting it sink

images

Courtesy of the ABC Australia Network:

Fiji’s interim prime minister Frank Bainimarama has accused the global community of abandoning Pacific island nations to “sink below the waves” instead of tackling climate change.

Opening a regional summit, he singled out “selfish” Australia for criticism, saying there is “collective disappointment and dismay” in the Pacific at the failure to address climate change.

“The rising sea levels caused by global warming threaten the very existence of some of our neighbours – Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands,” he told the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF).

“[They] are already swamping the coastal areas of many Pacific nations, including Fiji.

“Yet if anything, the collective will of the global community to adequately address this crisis is receding.”

In a sane world this would be headline news.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      For those living on an island in the Pacific, climate change is a life and death matter. They can see first hand the effect of changing climate happening whether it’s human induced or not.

      http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=201766

      Australia is losing influence in the South Pacific due to Abbott’s stance on climate change, and the massive reduction in foreign aid. It is akin to giving the entire South Pacific to China on a platter. Beyond money, symbolism do matters a great deal in regard to foreign relation. (A good example is US’s return of a silver griffin to Iran which started off the current negotiations). Acknowledgement of Climate Change is important for the South Pacific Islands. Under Abbott, Australia is telling the South Pacific Islanders they can sink into the sea.

      • This should interest…biggest story on the UK Telegraph

        ************

        THE SCANDEL OF FIDDLED GLOBAL WARMING DATA
        Christopher Booker By Christopher Booker4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014

        When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

        Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

        When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

      • RTime- over 5200 comments!! This is huge. The fog is lifting and truth will prevail. A movement in disarray. Failed claims, failed predictions, failed science.

    • Sounds rather like “give me money”.

      Even if it was, money does not change anything.

      • How likely is it that the world will just stop emitting CO2, or at least reduce it to whatever number is needed in the time frame required? Barring a major breakthrough in nuclear fusion or a spontaneous change in human nature, the odds are about zero.

        So, we are realistically left with mitigation.

        There’s nothing we engineers would like better than a world powered by unicorn farts and good intentions, but that’s not the universe we have.

      • @Mayan

        How likely is it that the world will just stop emitting CO2, or at least reduce it to whatever number is needed in the time frame required? Barring a major breakthrough in nuclear fusion or a spontaneous change in human nature, the odds are about zero.

        Granted, that is the most likely scenario. But the change in climate is having very severe impact on the lives and livelihoods of these people. I am saying this as someone who was born and raised on a Pacific Island.

        Money can’t solve the issue of islands disappearing under water but in many cases, the pacific island are the perfect places to encourage energy self sufficiency. Fiji has a hydro-electric power but could do much more using solar etc.

        I think the message is, lets atleast acknowledge that it is materially impacting people.

  1. Tricky for an economy where the major sector is international tourism – all those fossil fuel powered aeroplanes and cruise ships emitting emitting…

    Professor Flannery’s admission that whatever Australia did about emissions wouldn’t be seen for a thousand years is a a salutary reminder of reality sans realpolitik AWG shenanigans. Oh and there’s a climate conference coming up…

      • Thanks. I know. But the entire alarmist position is built on dodgy science, flawed modelling and hysterical falsifications. It will eventually be replaced by good science, superior modelling and sensible commentary. Until then it’s a game for mugs.

      • But the entire alarmist position is built on dodgy science, flawed modelling and hysterical falsifications.

        Care to point to any evidence?

      • “But the entire alarmist position is built on dodgy science, flawed modelling and hysterical falsifications. It will eventually be replaced by good science, superior modelling and sensible commentary.”

        Wait, are we talking about climate change or neoclassical economics?

    • SabreOfParadise

      “Tricky for an economy where the major sector is international tourism – all those fossil fuel powered aeroplanes and cruise ships emitting emitting…”

      She got raped because she dresses like a whore. Repugnant.

  2. Suffice to say like many with a background in the geosciences and/or mining engineering, I hold a healthy skepticism when evaluating many of the more extremist claims of the AGW Climate Change Brigade.

    The World Bank, long an enthusiastic proponent of AGW, appears to be taking a step back from proceedings. A long excerpt from their most recent report noting ‘deep uncertainties’. Well worth the read.

  3. Why was the excerpt deleted? I apologise for its length but it is essential reading – entirely supportive of adopting a more cautious approach to accepting the myriad and often conflicting claims of AGW climate change.

    Mod: TOO LONG

    • Hey did you see the Oz is running a campaign against plain packaging of cigarettes? Incredible! I thought even die-hard wing nuts had given up on that caper. Are you working on that job 3d1k?

      We are talking the lowest of the low here, absolute pond scum. 3d1k and his like will do and say anything for a buck. They have a multi trillion dollar industry to defend.

      • It seems blindingly obvious that the rich and powerful wish to maintain their wealth and power for as long as they possibly can, which means, at best, continuing business as usual for as long as possible—and the environment be damned—and at worst lying and killing “as needed” in order to maintain their wealth and power at the expense of other humans, other species, and the planet. So this group has obvious, strong psychological, emotional, and practical motives for attacking those who produce evidence related to global warming, ecological, and nuclear collapse, thus threatening their power positions.

    • I don’t see how that backs up your claim that :

      But the entire alarmist position is built on dodgy science, flawed modelling and hysterical falsifications.

      The climate is a dynamic, non-linear system. As such, it is difficult to predict.

      A cascade of uncertainties plagues climate change, and these uncertainties preclude prediction of the precise nature, timing, frequency, intensity and location of climate change impacts. The chain of increasing uncertainty begins with assumptions about the socio-economic characteristics of the global population, which determine the specification of a range of possible emissions scenarios. Estimates of climatic effects depend not only on the scenarios chosen but also on the configuration of the climate model used and existing knowledge of biophysical responses. Additionally, the farther into the future our projections, the greater the uncertainty. Uncertainty is also compounded by geographical resolution: uncertainty increases as the resolution of effects increases, from regional to country to local impacts. Even climate experts are unlikely to agree on a prediction of specific impacts of climate change. Many go even further in rejecting the specification of probabilities for climate change impacts because of the lack of repeated experiments, lack of independent observations, and the fact that all probabilities are conditional on a multitude of socio-economic and other developments.

      All that is saying is that exact predictions are impossible. Nothing about the science being flawed. All models have their caveats and this is usually explained with the model/data.

  4. The world has limited resources which should not be wasted yet we just keep burning them at an alarming rate such as oil: 90 million barrels per day. Total Global Coal Production in 2012 7831Mt (http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/)

    “There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.”

    ― Peter F. Drucker

    That quote pretty much sums up the world we all live in.

    • Yes, but the response is “You can prise my ignition keys from my globally warmed dead hand” 🙄

  5. Over my lifetime I heard stories about our society being industrialist, post-industrialist, information society …

    Reality is that over the last century our society was and stayed fossil fuel society. Our agriculture is just inefficient way of turning oil into food (we use at least 10 calories of oil energy to produce one calorie of food), transportation is all about fossil fuels, manufacturing is just conversion of oil into plastic and stuff, …

    we have to stop doing this mad consumerist business, not just change source of energy

    • Hey,agriculture is still a way more effective way of turning oil into carbohydrates than the alternative of reducing alkanes to carboxylic acids, turning the carboxylic acid into alcohol and turning the alcohols into monosaccharides before finally polymerising the monosaccharides to make starch. I suspect it is genuinely the most efficient way of turning oil into food that there is, or there would be starch factories all over the word turning barrels of crude directly into edible starch

      • “There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.”

        ― Peter F. Drucker

  6. Where do those that argue against this get their information from? Not their arguments, anyone can make up an argument, but their information.

    I’ve worked with geodosists from Geoscience Australia who are responsible for setting up and monitoring the sea levels on these pacific islands and there is no doubt amongst this group of people that the sea levels are rising.

    And why is there no doubt? because the measurements that they are taking are telling them that that is the case.

    It beggars belief the nonsense that pops up when the subject turns to the climate. The scientific discussion is not underpinned by some sort of metaphysical assumption. Nor is it a case of aesthetic judgment, say comparing modern poetry against the romantics.

    We are dealing with measurable elements and creating working models. These models are not perfect, but their predictive success rate against later measurements have been depressingly accurate.

    If a model came out that could predict the stock-market or football tipping with the success of these climate models everyone would be lining up to buy one.

    Now that that is out of my system I’m going to start enjoying my weekend.

    • Comment of the week there footsore, cheers 🙂

      Not that 3d would have anything nice to say about that truth…

      “If a model came out that could predict the stock-market or football tipping with the success of these climate models, everyone would be lining up to buy one.”

    • Climate ‘skeptics’ don’t have an ‘argument’.

      “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”

      What climate ‘skeptics’ have is contradiction.

    • Our Prime Minister, in the name of climate ‘skepticisim’ has called into question the idea that CO2 can influence heat transfer, an idea theorised by Fourier and quantified by Arrhenius, both of whom might be considered to be slightly more authoritative on chemistry and heat transfer than Tony Abbott. Climate skepticism is not skepticism,

  7. This should interest…biggest story on the UK Telegraph
    Only if you believe in fairy tales!

    Firstly, Steven Goddard has been outed as a climate science denialist (see http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/ and https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91).

    Secondly, a recent article in Quarterly Journal of
    the Royal Meteorological Society by Cowtan and Way found that the rate of global warming had been underestimated (see http://climatechangenationalforum.org/science-magazine-climate-outsider-finds-missing-global-warming/ ).

    Anyone making investment decisions in the belief that AGW is not happening better have a quick exit plan.