legislating global warming - FB Conversation

S.B. posted this: FrickIng amazing.



North Carolina tries to outlaw sea level rise grist.org
North Carolina is no stranger to the “if you dislike it then you should have made a law against it” model of legislation, but this is extreme: The state General Assembly’s Replace...

T.R.:  ONLY in a RED STATE...

R.E.: If you read the text of the of the Bill I can understand where they are going with this.

S.B.: Where is that, R.E.? A complete disregard for science?

R.E.: What it is saying is who will Government listen to make determination as to changes in use of coastal lands such as permits and regulations requirements. They are not disregarding science at all but which sciencist do you listen to and which Model do we use. That is what they are saying. How do we make the Determination as a state to cause more uniform regulation of the use of coastal lands.

S.B.: Nonsense. They are saying "DESPITE significant scientific consensus on the range of ocean level predictions, we choose to prescribe ones that nobody actually believes and which have absolutely no methodological basis on which to rest -- because those are the ones that serve our political purposes."

S.B.: Responsible planning would take into account the range of scientific opinion on this -- in which case their prediction would be FAR on the low-end of any credible prediction -- and require developers to plan accordingly. Which is precisely what Disney did, for example, in planning a $5B seaside resort in China recently -- they brought in climate scientists to help them understand what the likely (not "hoped for") scenarios would be, and planned their resort on the basis of the best science available at the time. This action by the NC legislature is an insult to the scientific process and a mockery of the planning process.

S.B.: I can't spare the time to try to explain all of climate science to you. Go educate yourself before trying to get into this debate -- and you'll realize there's very little to debate. This is not about "getting any scientist to say anything" -- the models on which more realistic sea level rises are predicted are far from arbitrary, and represent a broad consensus of the scientific community. Linear extrapolation of recent historical data IS a completely arbitrary approach -- there's no scientific basis for using that approach, and few in the scientific community feel that it would have any relevance to making science-based predictions of sea level increase. Linear extrapolation. Many, many phenomena in the environment are non-linear, and sea level rise appears to be one of them.

On what scientific basis do you argue that the linear method makes any sense? Where's a citation to research that suggests it has any relevance?

S.B.: like i said -- the disdain for science in this country -- particularly among the right, but really it's more universal than that, is extremely disheartening to anyone who cares about science.

R.E.: or it deciding that a county cant decide to use coastal lands just to develop lands just for additional tax revenue. Which has happened in the past. By the state deciding the criteria you use coastal land it doesn't allow for the County government to make that determination. As someone who lived in North Carolina I know how the counties will suddenly decide to develop an area of wet land regardless of the damage it will do to nature. They want to have proven models and not just someone with a PHD behind thier name to say what they think about some unproven therory. They are trying to give a baseline for the Scienctist and evidence to how the coastal lands are to be used. And there is no place in the Bill that says they are going hold back the sea rising?

S.B.: Don't quit your day job 

R.E.: As far as Climate Change, There a basically three thereories out there 1. It is a natural occurence and is uneffected by man. 2. It is caused by man thru green house gasses. 3 It is a Natural occurrence that is effected by man thru green house gasses. There is compelling evidence on all three thereories. One has to decide which one you want to believe in. Trust me Scott I've done my reading on this subject.

S.B.: Rod if you think those theories are on equal scientific footing there's nothing I can say that will change your mind on the matter. Other than keep reading.
Me: It ain't a disdain for sceince. That is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with leftist prescriptions. 

S.B.: Ok. Maybe "disdain" is too strong a word. "ignorance" might be better - as in the act of deliberately ignoring it 

R.Y.: It is, however, a flat out denial of observed trends to increase short-term private profits. In the long term the costs of such denial will then be passed on to the taxpayers. 

L.F.: What I find disturbing is the "Science is a conspiracy AGAINST progress!!!" mentality. Yes... Right... The brave few who go in to science anymore surely do it to get rich by cheating the common man out of his rightful wealth. 

Me: The problem is the left constantly moralizing about it. Science has nothing to do with this. It is the insistence on big government solutions when it is clear that government solutions are anything but.

It is one thing to discern a situation/problem. It is quite another to insist on the process of remedy and degrade one's political opponents if they dare open their mouths.

And no, it isn't about money, it's about power. 

R.E.: To tell me to keep reading On which scienctific model do you think I should be subscribing to because if you notice as far as the science I didn't really take a side, you just read more into it than I was saying. I was taking the side on th...e control of the use of coastal land being at the state level rather than local Government because of making it more uniform. As far as Climate change you do realize that the science community doesn't all agree on which model they subscribe to and there is good arguements on all three possible causes, I know which one I do subscribe to. Scott since you have been calling me an idiot on this posting why don't you tell me which one I subscribe to.

B.R.: I propose another theory to the climate debate: physics. We generally agree on how physics works, and the distinct lack of a left or right spin on anything seems trustworthy. 

R.E.: How do you propose to use physics to forecast future tidal action and weather patterns? Un like the West Coast and especially Washington State, We don't have violent weather than can hit North Carolina.