TK Bulletin – In Samoa, indigenous peoples use videos to show climate change damage

I left the following comment at

As usual I await any response with interest.

Of course the residents of Samoa are going to find things to blame on Anthropogenic CO2 induced Global Warming.

The UN is basically offering them big money to help them battle the fiction.

They are not silly!

For instance, check what happened when the most authorative sea level expert in the world found that there was no sea level increases in the Maldives.



 Amy Eisenberg, Ph.D. Says:
20 May 2010 at 8:46 am

Strong words of disbelief, indeed! We are all entitled to our opinions however they may be hurtful and lacking in cultural sensitivity and respect.

Dr. Amy Eisenberg
International Society of Ethnobiology

3 Responses to “TK Bulletin – In Samoa, indigenous peoples use videos to show climate change damage”

  1. mothincarnate Says:

    I’m sure you could give me plenty of sources showing Antarctic ice growing, I could come up with a couple journal articles that say similar (which, believe it or not hold a lot more weight than Watts). However, although there is evidence of shelf expanse increase, this is not growth: volume of land ice is decreasing. So this IS the point – less ice, more water.

    And as I said previously, the article you provided seemed little more than a joke: an economic journo interviewing a retired specialist that spends a lot of time big noting himself and it was clear throughout that the two began with the view that the environmental science community if ripe with liars… Bias, self-praising and pretty out-dated is all I can say about that piece.

  2. rogerthesurf Says:

    No use telling me all these things, I could just as easily give you plenty of sources showing the Antarctic total ice is growing etc. but thats not the point.

    The point is that the people at TK Bulletin are not prepared to justify their stance, which perhaps implies they are either ignorant about the issue, too arrogant to answer questions about the issue or are actually deliberately involved in a case of deception.

    The study in the Maldives was done about 2003.



  3. mothincarnate Says:

    That’s a rather bias paper you have there; published in an economics journal… hmmm…
    Swindlers? I’m sure if any Aussie’s came over and knocked over a few trees, these people would have little to do with the scientific community and I’d ask to see evidence of this. A tree near the coast is as much evidence for your case as the latest denial campaign; that Romans wore toga’s because it s hotter then than it is now (much like the medieval warm period you like, there’s a Roman one also that’s gaining support; just thought I’d let you know so you could use it on your quest).
    His work seems to go only as far as 2002, which largely avoids the warmest decade we’ve seen so are. It also ignore the accelerating loss of glacier ice over Greenland and polar regions over this decade.
    See the following for example studies and reviews:
    Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements. Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R., Blankenship, D., and Tapley, B. D. 2009. Nature Geoscience.
    A time constant for hemispheric glacier mass balance. Green, A. M., 2005. Journal of Glaciology.
    Six decades of glacier mass-balance observations: a review of the world wide monitoring network. 2009. Zemp, M., Hoelzle, M., Haeberli, W. Annals of Glaciology.
    Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. 2009. Velicogna, I. Geophysical Research Letters.
    Obviously water takes up less volume than the equivalent ice, however, only a fool would be unable to see that all this ice loss must add up to higher oceans – Archimedes was the very chap that got us onto the principles of displacement and volume over 2100 years ago.
    This also ignores the fact the energy imbalance of the atmosphere is increasing and also the decreasing pH of the ocean – which is directly the result of our CO2 emissions getting taken up by our oceans to produce a calcium-carbonate-shell-hating bloke by the name of Carbonic Acid! But I gave you some references on that already.
    You’re grasping at shadows dear sir. In a recent article in New Scientist they argue that the difference between denial and sceptics is that a sceptic will be critical of any information that comes in and their belief will be based on the best available information with more than enough room to be modified over time as new ideas challenge the only (ie. the basis of scientific thinking), while denial is based on pre-conceived ideas and will choose only evidence that fits this frame work (ie. cheery picking). In the light of new evidence, denial just keeps on harping the same notes over and over again, never changing the tone regardless. You’re striking me as a member of the latter group I have to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: