G'day Wolfman,
Haven't time to read the posts in full yet but will in the next day. One point about the Pacific Islands is that there is NO PROOF of sea level rise. There is proof of island subsidence. That is the norm for most Pacific islands. There is evidence - the Marshall Islands are prime examples - of removal of ground water causing loss of land height. But there is currently no evidence that the Pacific sea level has changed very much at all since the Admiralty has kept records of the region.
This is a very bad example of a "Canary" as it is one that really has little proof but it is a very emotive point. Mr Gore used this very point showing photos of Pacific Islands being swamped.
What we were discussing is the "abundance" of evidence rather than purely the temperature readings of global warming and just how reliable that evidence is. Does it qualify as an early warning system just as the Canaries are meant to do or does it just demonstrate that Canaries can and do die from many causes even in coal mines. My contention being made was there really isn't all that much evidence at all that would fit the Canary analogy. Emotive points don't prove anything but I'd be very happy for you to present any evidence of sea level rises specifically relating to Tuvalu. Have you actually been to Tuvalu by the way? The one thing I would not charactirise the place as is fertile. Coral atols generally have extremely poor soils. Your example is so close to sea level that it is inundated by salt water several times a year and is scoured by cyclones fairly regularly. Their problems certainly didn't start in the 70s. Its really strange but I have a particular interest in environmental issues of the Pacific in the region you live. I was a consultant for a major environmental group there a while back and visited the area frequently. I also picked up a very nasty parasite that lives just in Samoa because the country did not even have the sense to work out that putting their sewerage works upstream of their water supply might not be the best of ideas. What I found was a bunch of dedicated environmentalists trying to work on a very practical level with governments that were often antagonistic towards them unless they were offered funds, natives that were happy to dynamite reefs and kill animals that were very close to extinct unless you could come up with an economic reason for them to stop. And not one that involved that eventually there would be no fish. It had to be an immediate benefit.
If I remember rightly a bunch of Pacific nations are currently attempting to sue for damages for Global Warming. So they have managed to completely stuff up their little patches of paradises, often with the huge support of fundamentalist churches, have governments that make even Fiji look democratic and when the land is totally stuffed they have now found a convenient scapegoat. Now that is a very political and biased opinion but since you live in the Pacific, you must recognise some truth in what I have written.
Regards
Richard
