No, BBC, a Small Panamanian Island is Not Drowning Due to Climate Change

The BBC’s recent article “Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island,” claims that the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama is being swallowed by rising sea levels due to climate change. This is false. The reality is that the island’s inhabitants are not being forced to relocate because of rising oceans, but due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of resources—issues that have nothing to do with climate change. Furthermore, real-world examples and peer-reviewed research contradict the idea that small islands are disappearing due to rising seas. Instead, many islands are growing, adapting, and naturally shifting over time. The BBC’s report is misleading at best, deliberately deceptive at worst.

Cartí Sugdupu is one of Panama’s San Blas Islands, home to the indigenous Guna people. The BBC’s article, painting a picture of climate-induced displacement, completely ignores the fact that the island is severely overcrowded, with more than 1,000 people packed into a tiny space of just 0.028 square miles. That’s a population density higher than New York City! The primary reason the residents are moving is not rising sea levels, but poor living conditions, lack of fresh water, and a shortage of space—issues that have been pressing for decades.

Instead of addressing these fundamental concerns, the BBC presents the relocation as a direct result of climate change, despite the absence of evidence that rising seas are responsible. The sea level around Panama has been rising at an average of about 1 to 3 mm per year, a rate consistent with natural post-Little Ice Age trends, a rate that has not increased during the recent period of climate change. As such, there is no indication of an impending climate catastrophe as described in Climate at a Glance. At this pace, it would take centuries before Cartí Sugdupu would face submersion.

Some new islands are even emerging. For example in the article San Blas Reborn: New Islands Emerge Amidst Climate Change Hysteria it has been reported:

Off the coast of Maoqui in the Dutch Cays, a new island is gradually taking shape. What started as a mere speck of land, approximately 5 meters by 8 meters, has grown over the past decade to a remarkable 40 meters by 80 meters.

The BBC article implies that small islands like Cartí Sugdupu are being swallowed by the ocean, yet fails to mention peer-reviewed research demonstrating that most islands are stable or even expanding. A 2018 study published in Nature Communications examined 101 Pacific and Indian Ocean islands and found that 88 percent were either stable or increasing in size (Kench, Ford, and Owen, 2018). The processes that shape islands—sediment accumulation, reef growth, and dynamic land movement—mean that atolls and low-lying islands are not passive victims of sea level rise.

Tuvalu is a perfect example. Despite years of claims that the country would disappear, its total land area has actually grown by 2.9 percent over four decades. Similar observations have been made for islands in Kiribati, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands. If these islands are growing or maintaining their size despite sea level rise, why would Cartí Sugdupu be uniquely doomed? The BBC refuses to acknowledge this inconvenient reality.

The real reason for the relocation of Cartí Sugdupu’s residents has nothing to do with climate change. Instead, it comes down to basic infrastructure challenges:

  • Overpopulation – As seen in the head photograph, the island is overcrowded, with nowhere to expand. Unlike coral atolls that naturally grow, Cartí Sugdupu is an isolated, heavily inhabited island with no room for additional housing or development.
  • Lack of Freshwater and Sanitation – Many small islands struggle with freshwater availability. The BBC ignores this and instead attributes all hardships to climate change.
  • Economic and Government Decisions – Panama’s government is relocating the residents as part of a planned move, not an emergency evacuation due to rising waters.

The BBC’s reporting is a prime example of climate alarmism dressed up as journalism, with the organization pushing a narrative, while ignoring crucial facts. Rather than investigating the real reasons behind Cartí Sugdupu’s relocation—overpopulation, lack of infrastructure, and government decisions—the BBC misleadingly claims climate change is forcing its residents to relocate. It is the government that has made that decision, and not because the seas are rising at a historically unusual rate. The BBC ignores peer-reviewed research disproving its claim that islands are disappearing, fails to mention historical sea level trends, and omits crucial local factors that explain the island’s challenges. This isn’t objective reporting—it is activism disguised as news. The BBC’s audience deserves better, it deserves the truth.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/HARgkU1

February 13, 2025 at 08:07AM

The LA fires were man-made, but not like they say

It’s too easy for progressives to continue to focus on “net zero” targets and blame every environmental disaster on climate change.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/zgVLXc7

February 13, 2025 at 07:44AM

Pembrey Sands WMO 03605 – 100% Unacceptable by the Met Office’s own regulations.

51.71437 -4.36749 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5S Installed 1/1/1994

This is my 150th post in the Surface Stations Project. Most would have expected that I would have run out of sub-standard sites to review but the reality is far from it. Pembrey Sands is rated by the Met Office themselves as the lowest possible Class 5, and then some more, being heavily affected by shade. The fact is that this site is 100% unacceptable and unfit for purpose for an even more fundamental reason.

Pembrey Sands weather station is located at the Weapons Range of the same name and consequently in a public restricted area. Clearly the surroundings, whilst natural, are not typical of the wider area in being largely sandy soil and even open bare sand – a problem but not the main one.

I cannot over emphasize how irrelevant the Class 5 assessment of any weather station is. Giving a rating suggests some standard (albeit a low one) is being met – this is not the case. Class 5 is entirely a negative and very short assessment as follows.

All this actually means is that there are no criteria to meet and simply that it fails to meet Class 4 which is, in effect, the lowest possible rating with any qualifying standards. Class 4 is inaccurate and unrepresentative junk, Class 5 is even worse. The addition of adding an “S” to further indicate problems due to shade is somewhat superfluous. However Pembrey gets even worse than that. This short You tube clip below briefly explains requirements for an acceptably sited Stevenson Screen.

And this still from another clip adds to the point

All official weather stations require Stevenson Screens to be located over GRASS – surely that is not too difficult to either understand or comply with in the UK – is it?

So why is it that Pembrey Sands weather station is located over CONCRETE? This site will inevitably record artificially enhanced higher temperature readings.

There is no problem with having this weather station for its intended military purposes. The facts are that the Met Office knows full well that this site does not meet acceptable standards for climate reporting purposes and contributing data to the historic temperature record. The conclusions can only be that it has been included since the 1990s to either deliberately corrupt the temperature record or the Met office is not operating in a competent manner. Take your pick.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/pIdHFPV

February 13, 2025 at 06:40AM

Why Don’t The Met Office Tell The Truth About UK Storms?

By Paul Homewood

Are storms getting worse in the UK?

You would be excused for thinking they are, given the torrent of headlines year after year:

 image

image

image

image

image

image

.

I have certainly seen several comments in the media to that effect after Storm Eowyn last month. The Met Office themselves stoke this fake propaganda, with comments like this:

Most climate projections indicate that winter windstorms will increase slightly in number and intensity over the UK as a result of climate change.

You might recall a story I ran last month, when Sheffield City Council blamed climate change for a £5m tree maintenance bill, stating that the increased regularity of storms had caused costs to balloon.

Nowhere at any stage have I seen the Met Office publicly correct this disinformation and acknowledge in the media what their own Annual Reviews of the UK Climate say year after year – that storms are less intense and less frequent than they used to be – see here.

.

A year ago, I carried out an analysis of wind speeds at Bingley, West Yorkshire, using data provided by the Met Office. It showed a clear decline in maximum gust speeds each year since 1972:

(The maximum gust from Eowyn was 54 kts, though it is not shown on the graph).

.

image

.

I have now used the same data to calculate the number of stormy days each year, defined as over 50 kts. The results are startling as well as damning for the misinformation spewed by the media, which is sustained by the Met Office’s refusal to tell the public the truth.

.

image

NOTE: There are 1076 days with no Met Office data between 1973 and 2009. Since 2009 there are 7 missing days.

.

I really don’t need to comment, do I? The contrast is so stark that I even rechecked all of the data.

But what is also remarkable is that the 1970s appeared every bit as bad as the 1990s, both for peak gusts and frequency.

In 1974 there were 13 days over 50 kts at Bingley,including six in December alone, with the 28th peaking at 66 kts. A glance at the monthly weather report proves that the whole country had the same sort of weather:

image

image

We have not had a month like that in recent years. 78 kts (90mph) at Kew is simply astonishing, as is 83 kts at Eskdalemuir amd Middlesborough– note these were all set on separate days.

Bingley is of course just one location, but my analysis correlates closely with the UK plot of 50 kt storms, which also shows a marked decline in storm days after the turn of the century:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-9.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/08/04/met-office-admit-storms-were-much-worse-in-past/

It is time that the Met Office claim clean and told the public the truth about storms.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/E48gzHr

February 13, 2025 at 04:13AM