New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise

[islandman]

A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise, prompting environmentalists to accuse the state of disrespecting climate science.

The law has put the state in the spotlight for what critics have called nearsightedness and climate change denial, but its proponents said the state needed to put a moratorium on predictions of sea level rise until scientific techniques improve.


http://news.yahoo.com/law-north-car...tions-sea-165416121--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
President Obama, June 2008

Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. [during his campaign], he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when “our planet began to heal” and “the rise of the oceans began to slow.”
When you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn’t be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[KRCummings]

Tennessee is gonna be beachfront property.

 

[cjh]

Did they outlaw the ocean from rising, too?

 

[islandman]

Did they outlaw the ocean from rising, too?

And the rulers with which to measure.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nonsense, this isn't happening!

 

[trysail]

It makes perfect sense since climatology's forecasts have been as reliable as those issued by Wall Street analysts.


Only fools put much faith in forecasts produced by crystal ball, Wall Street, tea leaf and entrail readers.

 

[koalabear]

Wow! predictions are always so accurate too!

 

[islandman]

It makes perfect sense since climatology's forecasts have been as reliable as those issued by Wall Street analysts.


Only fools put much faith in forecasts produced by crystal ball, Wall Street, tea leaf and entrail readers.

Accuracy be damned, but banning something you don't care to hear makes sense????

 

[Recidiva]

It's more about fluctuation on land prices based on those estimates than it is about denying climate science.

 

[sethp]

But in all seriousness. There is a possibility of sea level rise. Scientists should study it and put forth predictions ( backed by sound science) and we should have a healthy, non hate filled discussion and debate about it. LOL

 

[islandman]

It's more about fluctuation on land prices based on those estimates than it is about denying climate science.

Of course it is.

The current owners just want to be able to sell the land to the next sucker who has to watch his/her plot go underwater over the next century.

 

[islandman]

But in all seriousness. There is a possibility of sea level rise. Scientists should study it and put forth predictions ( backed by sound science) and we should have a healthy, non hate filled discussion and debate about it. LOL

We can't manage to do that with a chicken sandwich.

 

[sethp]

We can't manage to do that with a chicken sandwich.

Well... that's true.

 

[Recidiva]

But in all seriousness. There is a possibility of sea level rise. Scientists should study it and put forth predictions ( backed by sound science) and we should have a healthy, non hate filled discussion and debate about it. LOL

There is a possibility, yes. But based on certain predictions, it's hard to sell or appraise a bit of land that's theoretically already under water.

It's more about economics and keeping a housing market sane and budgets under control.

Do they build barriers, do they build a levy, do they dredge, do they charge $5 for a plot of land because it's going to be drowned next week? Do they improve roads or raise them?

This is the low country. Lots of water. It's a problem if the area is barraged with values that really do affect daily living concerns.

 

[Recidiva]

Of course it is.

The current owners just want to be able to sell the land to the next sucker who has to watch his/her plot go underwater over the next century.

Not really. It's a little more "attempting to be sane" than that. At least from my understanding of it. It's not a huge conspiracy, more an attempt to manage the "futures" market of real estate.

And based on different projections, it really isn't a science. It's just a projection. Considering it's gotten cooler than was projected just a few years ago, it's not unreasonable.

 

[SlowCoach]

But in all seriousness. There is a possibility of sea level rise. Scientists should study it and put forth predictions ( backed by sound science) and we should have a healthy, non hate filled discussion and debate about it. LOL

they should put it forward, but who will buy and invest in "beach front" property when you're told ", oh and in 25 years your house will be under water, should that happen you can buy an optional ex-russian military submarine we have a offer on"

 

[Sean Renaud]

We can't manage to do that with a chicken sandwich.

It was pretty civil actually. The Right came out and said, this is an outrage interfering with that man's business and the Left retorted, this is an outrage interfering with that bigots business!

 

[islandman]

Not really. It's a little more "attempting to be sane" than that. At least from my understanding of it. It's not a huge conspiracy, more an attempt to manage the "futures" market of real estate.

And based on different projections, it really isn't a science. It's just a projection. Considering it's gotten cooler than was projected just a few years ago, it's not unreasonable.

I remain unconvinced. Insurance companies determine premiums based on internally-developed risk-modeling. Banning dissenting voices will do nothing to alter risk-premiums.

 

[Recidiva]

I remain unconvinced. Insurance companies determine premiums based on internally-developed risk-modeling. Banning dissenting voices will do nothing to alter risk-premiums.

It's not about insurance, it's about city planning.

If you've been doing the planning for years and 20 years ago they said you'd be under two feet of water and ten years ago they said you'd be under one foot of water and now they really admit they don't know because we can't predict weather, much less climate, accurately...

Especially in a recession and you don't have the cash to build an arms-grade Bio-Bubble around a town...

It's just a matter of practicality, not ideology.

 

[trysail]

Accuracy be damned, but banning something you don't care to hear makes sense????

It's every bit as predictable as interest rates, petroleum prices and earnings— which is to say, it's a waste of time, effort and money.

 

[run_silent]

In 1975 scientists were predicting coastal areas were going to be destroyed by ice. They were all in agreement then too. Man made global cooling.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I for one wish these guys the best of luck with their head in the sane strategy.

In 1975 scientists were predicting coastal areas were going to be destroyed by ice. They were all in agreement then too. Man made global cooling.

No they weren't.

 

[Recidiva]

In 1975 scientists were predicting coastal areas were going to be destroyed by ice. They were all in agreement then too. Man made global cooling.

If you look at the ice cores back about 600,000 years, the trend is really going to head toward cooling. We're at a peak of an unexplained cycle that takes place about every 150,000 years.

We're gonna go down, but of course it will take...an awfully long time. Long enough to get away at least if we plan ahead.

 

[Recidiva]

I for one wish these guys the best of luck with their head in the sane strategy.



No they weren't.

Yes, they were.