Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 Warming in 20th century over-estimated: "correcting the ocean cold bias would result in a more modest early-twentieth-century warming trend", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08230-1 Or for more direct refutations: Roy Spencer, climatologist, who has written entire books refuting climate change narratives: https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Skepticism-Busy-People... Judith Curry, (retired) climatologist, https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-ch... "All things considered, planet earth is doing fine. We are obviously not facing an existential crisis. Anyone who tells you that we are, is not paying attention to the historical data. Instead, they are concerned about what “might” happen in the future, based on predictions from inadequate climate models, driven by unrealistic assumptions." Nicola Scafetta, climatologist, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-lates... "The attempts of some of current climate modelers to explain and solve the failure of their GCMs in properly forecasting the approximate steady climate of the last 10 years are very unsatisfactory for any practical and theoretical purpose." John Clauser, Nobel prize winner in physics, https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-sig... "Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience." The usual response to all this is usually a No True Scotsman argument similar to the one posted by rsynnott, or a claim that "consensus" doesn't mean everyone agrees but only requires some arbitrary threshold in a carefully selected subgroup. Even there, it fails. The famous claim that 99% of climatologists agree with human-driven global warming doesn't replicate: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215 ... and has severe methodological errors.

match summaries which don't match abstracts which don't match IPCC reports which don't press releases which don't match TV news. Here, climatologists used picturesque Pacific islands to motivate major social changes without even bothering to measure whether their claims were true or not up until very recently. And when they did, and discovered the claims were not true, this fact was promptly buried and given no coverage. The misinformation gets repeated - which isn't your fault. After all, how were you to know?

Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century You didn't get unlucky with your choice of Tuvalu, a lot of common beliefs about the impact of climate change are like that. There's little discussion of this phenomenon, because it's taboo to criticize climate related narratives. Only argumentative gits like me are willing to do it. But the smart money knows this and quietly stays away. BTW this isn't specific to climate. I've known and talked to a few VCs over the years, and what I learned is that if there's an important and valuable area they're all collectively ignoring it's usually because they know things that other people don't. For instance, you may have noticed that Silicon Valley VCs usually avoid biotech startups, despite biotech being seen at one time as a high tech industry with potential similar to computing. That's because such startups often come out of academia, and VCs were aware of the replication crisis/fraud problems in biology earlier than most.

cause die-offs and it's the speed of change that seems to trigger it, not so much the absolute temperature. Sea level rise is small, constant over a much longer time period than the industrial era, and primarily caused by changes in the height of the land not the sea. That's why the Pacific islands that were supposedly in danger from climate change have actually grown over time, not shrunk. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 Finally, the hockey stick graphs that are so famous are all scientifically fraudulent, being based on techniques like dropping any input data that doesn't yield hockey stick graphs.

Tuvalu has grown due to other factors that were not previously considered. Yet the field is so corrupt that a paper literally reporting that Pacific islands are getting bigger has to start by repeating the claim that those very same islands will be "inundated" and "rendered uninhabitable". It goes on to argue that maybe the biggest problems the islands face is not climate change per se but rather "the historic imprint of colonial agendas and entrenched land tenure systems". That was in 2018. It had no effect on the narrative whatsoever. In 2019 the Guardian wrote a huge story telling its readers that Tuvalu is going to be drowned by climate change and how angry they are at Donald Trump because in future they'll have to evacuate their homes: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/o... “Tuvalu is sinking” is the local catch-all phrase for the effects of climate change on this tiny island archipelago on the frontline of global warming. The entire story is misinformation, but you'd never know that if you didn't double check these things and the Guardian not only never will but actively tells its readers that people who do double check are evil.