December 13, 2009
Tuvalu’s Ian Fry Gives Impassioned Plea at COP15 for the Fate of His Country
By 
As has been widely reported, plenary sessions where suspended last Wednesday when Tuvalu’s chief negotiator Ian Fry pleaded for consideration of the “Tuvalu Protocol” calling for strengthening of the Kyoto Protocol and sharply limiting greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of containing global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius – far more than developed nations are proposing.
On Friday he again addressed the session, making not of the “irony of the modern world that the fate of the world is being determined by some senators in the US Congress.” Fry tearfully concluded his remark saying “the fate of my country rests in your hands.”
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
Leave a Comment
Subscribe to Updates
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
Comments on Tuvalu’s Ian Fry Gives Impassioned Plea at COP15 for the Fate of His Country
Mr Fry is not from Tuvalu. He’s an Australian living in New South Wales. When asked if her husband had ever even been to Tuvalu, his wife said she would “rather not comment.” Hmmm.
Well, I’d like to see some confirmation of this, it seems unlikely he’d be the lead negotiator for Tuvalu if what you say is true – but in any case, where Ian Fry is from has no bearing on the fate of Tuvalu in the face of rising seas and acidifying oceans.
I cannot confirm it, but I have also seen it reported that he is an Aussie. And of course it is relevant. He refers to Tuvalu as “my country”. Is he a native, does he own it? If true this is another indication that too many are playing fast and loose with facts or suppressing dissent (e.g., Al Gore and his distortion of polar ice melting last week, Climategate). These are things that bring doubt on all the facts surrounding AGW.
If it is so relevant to you, then confirm it. Or perhaps you should listen to the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, as I did last week. It makes no difference as to what is happening to all AOSIS nations.
Al Gore misspoke on on polar ice melting? Then go out an get your own information about what is happening in the Arctic and Antarctic. Look at the research widely published. This isn’t about Al Gore (or Ian Fry).
ClimateGate: 1) where have you gotten your information? 2) what is your understanding of the scientific process?
It’s fine to question, but if you’re really looking for some sort of “smoking gun” to confirm a theory allowing you to doubt AGW – you aren’t going to find it in any of these places.
Mr. Shuenemann, you are very defensive. I am just asking a question. You were the one who reported what Fry said. I would think that if you thought it was important enough to report what he said. And the motives or facts involved were in question you would investigate and determine if there is any substance behind those questions. I know I would. But that’s just me. Are you trying to suppress dissent like Phil Jones? I thought you were a scientist. I would think you would want to pursue all avenues of inquiry.
Here is some background information on Ian Fry:http://law.anu.edu.au/CCLP/staff.asp (scroll down to his name). I reported what Fry said, and I have reported what the Prime Minister of Tuvalu said. I think you might have an unfinished sentence in your last comment, but I assume you are asking me to confirm Fry’s nationality, as it is a legitimate question in this context. My reply is that he is the head delegate of the UN delegation for Tuvalu and speaks on the nation’s behalf in that capacity. (read the link I provided to give some insight on his qualifications for the position). I am asking you if you think Fry’s nationality bears on the facts on the ground in Tuvalu. If so, then listen to the Prime Minister of Tuvalu.
Am I trying to suppress dissent against Phil Jones? Do you seriously think I could? Whether you think this is the case or not, there has been so much disinformation about the whole episode, that I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you where you have gotten your information regarding the hacked emails, and what your understanding is of the scientific process in general, and of the IPCC assessment reports in particular. Investigate Phil Jones and the whole affair? Yes. Conduct a witch hunt, throw out the baby with the bathwater, attempt to claim the entire body of climate science is a hoax based on the wild accusations of a few? No. Perhaps that is not your intent.
Am I being defensive? Perhaps. There are so many uninformed commenters (literally parroting talking points from Fox News and their surveys that add up to 120%) that leave personal and truly viscous attacks on me, that I might be a bit defensive. All I ask from you is to keep an open mind. If you do, so will I. But it frightens me to see the level of discourse in the US on this and other issues. There is no excuse for willful ignorance. And lastly, if I was trying to suppress anything, your comments – all comments for which I might otherwise feel “defensive” – would just be deleted.