In an effort to head off the supposed harm to economic development caused by the likely 1-meter rise is sea levels by 2100 reported by a state-appointed science panel, the legislators have circulated Replacement House Bill 819.
According to Huler, "The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: 'These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ' It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises."
"Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers."
Writing in the Charlotte Observer, Bruce Henderson reports that, "NC-20 Chairman Tom Thompson, economic development director in Beaufort County, said his members – many of them county managers and other economic development officials – are convinced that climate changes and sea-level rises are part of natural cycles. Climate scientists who say otherwise, he believes, are wrong."
Thanks to Kelly Bennett
Comments
NC Sea Level Rise Law
No one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age - very slowly; and certainly, if sea level rise (SLR) is accelerating rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it.
To do that, the proposed NC Sea Level Rise Law appears to be for “comprehensive verifiable science”, and against “selective political science”.
What’s the problem?
We know that the CRC Science Panel (SP) said, SL has been and is rising 18 inches / 100y , and scientists said that 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands, and sure, scientific reports do show natural and Government caused erosion (while generally ignoring accretion ), but they fail to differentiate between erosion and inundation.
A real world problem with the SP and the Scientist's reports is, a visual comparison of 1850’s US Coast Survey surveys of NC tidelands, with recent surveys , don’t seem to show 4 miles ( 150 y @ 18 inches / 100y ), or 2 miles ( 1 foot) , or even 1 mile (6 inches SLR/ 100y) of inundation.
When asked about this, the Scientists have refused to answer questions, have declined to do analysis of the surveys, and have refused to participate in an Open Public Forum. ( If they know it all, they should be able to answer several simple questions. ) Instead they have tried to denigrate we skeptics as ”willfully ignorant” developers against science, even though it’s the Local Property Owners and Governments ( along the esturine tidelands ) that will be most hurt by the SLR rules, not the developers. As an excuse for the lack of science, the Science Panel has said the CRC didn’t ask them to do a rigorous Scientific Report. Regrettably though, the Literature Search, that the Science Panel based its Policy Recommendation of 39” SLR / 2100 on, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports. ( Although, considering that the NOAA “No Regrets” office in Charleston, is paying scientists millions to prove SLR and AGW, it’s not surprising that there’s lots of Pro AGW and SLR literature.)
So, maybe Sea Level Rise will Accelerate? Maybe not?
To be sure, we recognize that, sometimes, decisions should be made based on the preponderance of the evidence,
but it's difficult to have confidence in evidence from scientists that:
- won't provide verifiable science, even on past SLR trends,
- won't answer simple questions, and
- won't participate in an Open Public Forum
but,
- then demand people accept their fortunetelling.
Are we supposed to blindly accept what the scientists say, and do what they demand without question?
Looks like the NC General Assembly is just trying to get some comprehensive verifiable Science, before making important public policy decisions.
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores
Bill Price Pine Knoll
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores,
are you affiliated with NC-20 in any way?