Science vs AGW Advocacy in North Carolina

English: State seal of North Carolina

State seal of North Carolina (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

UPDATE: The bill has passed – see here

Guest post by John Droz, Jr.

What’s been happening recently in North Carolina (NC) is a microcosm of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) story: politics vs science, ad-hominems vs journalism, evangelists vs pragmatists, etc.

The contentiousness is over one of the main AGW battlefields: sea level rise (SLR). NC happens to have a large amount of coast line, and has become the US epicenter for this issue.

The brief version is that this began several years ago when a state agency (Coastal Resource Commission: CRC) selected a 20± member “science panel” to do a scientific assessment of the NC SLR situation through 2100. This could have been a very useful project if there had been balance in the personnel selections, and the panel’s assessment adhered to scientific standards. Regrettably neither happened and the project soon jumped the rails, landing into the political agenda ditch.

In their 2010 report the panel concluded that NC should expect a 39 inch SLR by 2100. Their case was built around a 2007 paper by Stefan Rahmstorf, and was not encumbered by a single reference to a perspective different from Rahmstorf’s. Shortly after the report was released, state agencies started making the rounds of NC coastal communities, putting them on notice that they would need to make BIG changes (elevating roads and bridges, rezoning property, changing flood maps for insurance purposes, etc.).

As an independent scientist, I was solicited by my coastal county to provide a scientific perspective on this report. Even though I wasn’t a SLR expert, I could clearly see that this document was a classic case of Confirmation Bias, as it violated several scientific standards. But to get into the technical specifics I solicited the inputs of about 40 international SLR experts (oceanographers, etc.).

I compiled and edited their responses to the CRC panel’s report into what I called a Critique.

This 33 page document discussed how real science works, and then went through the 16 page CRC document, essentially line-by-line. In doing so numerous specious claims, unsupported assumptions, and questionable models were pointed out. It wasn’t pretty.

It was during this time that I was solicited to work with a small coastal organization called NC-20 (there are 20 NC coastal counties). Since they were interested in promoting science-based solutions (my agenda) for NC coastal issues, I agreed to be their Science Advisor and a board member (both non-paying, volunteer positions).

Initially we had hopes that the CRC panel’s report could be fixed, so we met with the head of the CRC, explained our concerns and handed the Critique to him. He appeared to be receptive and we were optimistic that this important matter could be straightened out. That proved to be an illusion, as none of the CRC panel members ever contacted us about fixing any of their mistakes, or about doing a more balanced assessment. Shame on them.

We subsequently asked that the Critique be posted on CRC’s SLR webpage, but they refused to do so. So much for presenting the facts to NC citizens.

On the positive side of things, due to our objections, the state did (temporarily anyway) back off from the rules and regulations that they had threatened coastal communities with. [BTW NC-20 is NOT disputing that there will be SLR. The amount of NC SLR is unknown, so a genuine scientific assessment of the NC SLR situation should be undertaken. What such an assessment entails is explained in the Critique’s Part 1.]

By all appearances it seems the CRC assumed that the prestige of their science panel would win the day against the NC-20 upstarts. To help assure that outcome they engaged in an intensive PR campaign to pervert this as a science vs real estate developers issue (with them representing the science side, of course!). Here’s a sample of several articles that appeared, and another.

It was during this time that a CRC Panel member wrote me saying that they agreed with the Critique, and apologized for signing off on the Panel’s report! The member stated that the Panel was driven by a few activists, and that everyone else simply went along. This was no surprise, but that an individual had the good conscience to apologize was refreshing.

Anyway, the CRC panel’s disinformation campaign didn’t work, as we didn’t go away. Further, almost everyone who actually read the Critique ended up being on our side. One legislator who liked it asked us to make a presentation to interested state legislators in November 2011. We took that opportunity and it was well received. (See my part.)

Not long after that the CRC panel changed their tactics. Their new plan was to issue an Addendum to their 2010 report, and then claim that all of our concerns were answered. If only that were the case! Their nine page document was prepared with zero contact with us — which tells you all you need to know about the sincerity that they had in any scientific resolution.

My response was to follow the successful earlier pattern, so I passed it on to my network of international SLR experts for their commentary. Again they were forthcoming, so I was able to compile and edit a detailed 18 page response that I called a Commentary. We again sent this directly to CRC, asked them to put it on their SLR website — but posted it ourselves on our own site. [We received no response from CRC, and they have yet to post our document.]

What happened next was a BIG surprise.

We were notified that state legislators were as exasperated as we were with the politicalization of these technical issues — and that they were going to introduce legislation to stop the agenda promoters! Wow.

In this case, SLR legislation was drafted by a staffer who has a PhD in oceanography. The main point of the document was that future SLR projections must be made based on extrapolating prior empirical data. In other words, state agencies would not be allowed to create policies that were based on speculations about some possible acceleration!

As a scientist, I’m always concerned about legislating technical matters. In this case, though, the evidence is quite clear that certain NC agencies have no genuine interest in real science. So what to do? Defunding them is a possibility, but that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Replacing the agency’s problem people is another option, but the logistics for that weren’t practical. So putting some constraints on these dogmatists has some merit.

Not surprisingly, the backlash was immediate. These evangelists are used to getting their way, and for legislators to actually stand up against their religion was an unexpected development.

In their anguish they lashed out to anyone they could blame for this roadblock in their crusade — including yours truly. There were numerous rants (some national) lamenting how “good science” was being thwarted by ignorant legislators. Even the Colbert Report had fun with it.

Of course, the reality that the legislators were actually trying to protect NC citizens from promoters masquerading their agendas as science, was rarely reported. Such are the times we are living in, where talk is cheap, and few understand what science really is.

What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures. The solution (in my opinion) is that such renegades should have their degrees revoked, just as a priest is defrocked for violating his vows.

In any case, here is a piece about the NC SLR bill (H819), which includes a link to download a PDF version. Last Friday, there was a brief committee hearing (see interesting video) where this measure was discussed and voted on. It passed unanimously.

As I understand it, the NC Senate may be voting on this measure this week. I am hoping that they will not be dissuaded from their worthy objective. I wrote this (word limited and edited) NC op-ed to respond to some of the misinformation.

IMO there are parts of this bill that can be improved, and I submitted written suggestions. If you’d like to add your comments, please direct them to the bill’s sponsors: Senator David Rouzer and Representative Pat McElraft. (Please copy me.)

Some are predicting that this measure will pass the legislature, and then be vetoed by our lame-duck Governor. As an optimist, I’m hoping that since the Governor no longer needs to cater to the green constituency, that instead she can send a message that real science should be the basis of the state’s technical policies. That would give her legacy a major positive boost.

John Droz, Jr. is a Physicist & Environmental Advocate; Morehead City, North Carolina

About these ads

89 thoughts on “Science vs AGW Advocacy in North Carolina

  1. One word tells the whole story: Insurance. The rest is details. Insurance companies have been at the forefront of the Carbon Cult, because it gives them an unarguable way to offload their responsibilities onto other big corporations or onto non-suable Nature.

  2. “What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures. ” Those folks by definition are not scientists …

  3. Congratulations sir!
    Dogged persistence and the refusal to bow down to activist groupthink but demand real science is the best way forward as WUWT has previously demonstrated.

  4. <i.What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures.

    I challenge Mr. Droz to supply those names.

  5. “What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures.” I wish I could say this is a recent phenomenon, but it goes back over a century. As a result, I wonder how many modern “scientists” even know scientific method and what distinguishes science from non-science? Is it any wonder then that many “scientists” jump onto such political bandwagons as AGW?

  6. Phil C says- “I challenge Mr. Droz to supply those names.”

    Look at the authors of AR4 who have affiliations with enviro NGO’s and insurance companies.
    Add to the list any climate researcher whose funding relies on defending the spectre of CACC.

  7. Well, you can all stop worrying about increasing sea levels due to warming since it has stopped warming since 1994.
    I predict that ALL values obtained from equipment in the satellites used to disprove my maths will prove to be faulty, no doubt,
    due to error?, low precision?, accuracy? (no ?)calibration, calibration periods?, representativity of earth? and more such simple problems that only true scientists understand…

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

  8. I do not discount the possibility, of course, that there is a conspiracy to hide the fact that earth is cooling and everybody making money on it, is in it.
    \
    They already changed the “global warming” notion to that of “climate change”

  9. Wow! In that kind of environment, how can one call themselves a “scientist”? How hard can it be to just walk in and proclaim you are one? This doesn’t just deserve a defrocking or two,but a [SNIP: Sorry, but this really will be taken the wrong way. -REP] at least..!

  10. They may have a lot of the big guns, but we’ve got the better people like John Droz. Well done Sir, to both you and your fellow truth tellers.

    Pointman

  11. I know this is off topic, my apologies. Not to long ago there was a post about a company purchasing electricity for several states for future use. I tried the search box & clicking on show more posts. I can’t find it. I need the link to the company. Can somebody please help me?

    Have a nice day

  12. These whackos do not take kindly to push-back against their agenda. Their livelihood and ideology disappear the instant any light is shined on the garbage they throw around in the name of ‘science.’
    Congratulations to John Droz.

  13. I think there ought to be full, healthy discussion about the federal gov’t giving a 5 million dollar grant to fund a study which necessitates enormous increases in state control of coastal land, by using zoning, restrictions, and extremely expensive regulations.

    I think there ought to be a full, healthy discussion about fishing, private property, drilling for oil, collecting fossils and sand or other hobbies by American citizens on our own beaches and shores.

    I think there ought to be a full, healthy discussion about the Law of the Sea Treaty, which requires all profits from any use of the ocean to be shared with worldwide recipients.

    Ref:
    “full, healthy discussion about our coast and its future” http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/23/1876250/the-states-sea-level-retreat.html#storylink=cpy

  14. I just finished reading James Gleick’s bio on the unique physicist Richard Feynman. Gleick (not to be confused with Peter) recalls a Caltech experimenter who came to Feyman about a result reached after a process of correcting data. Gleick said Feyman felt “..it was all too easy to fall into the trap of correcting until the answer looked right. To avoid it required an intimate acquaintance with the rules of the scientist’s game. It also required not just honesty, but a sense that honesty required exertion.” This mirrors Droz’s take on the so-called science presented here by the CRC’s panel. And this is the root of the problem with the alarmists. There have been a few here with an equal but opposite political agenda to alarmists that may refute this, but the contention here is not that skeptics are against science and the notion of green (i.e., smarter, more efficient use of resources) practices but rather FOR “real science” as emphasized by Droz. Thank you Mr. Droz for the honesty and exertion.

  15. Phil C, You should be supporting Mr Droz, unless you too believe that sea levels will rise by 39 inches in the next 90 years. Why, maybe you even believe Hansen when he goes for a 120 inch rise by 2040
    You need to make your mind up Phil, the rate your predictions are coming down, you will soon be raving sceptic

  16. John Droz Jr: Let’s hope that all of the work you put into this will keep things moving in the right direction. Congratulations on the results to date.

    Regards.

  17. Phil C believes everything the AGWs tell him to believe. Read what he says with a pinch of cyncism.

  18. Congratulations John.

    The only way to stop these scientists is to get to the politicians because the scientists have shown NO ability to police themselves (instead they are goading each other on to make up even greater exaggerations).

    The Wilmington NC tide gauge says 7 inches by 2100, not 39 inches.

  19. From the CRC Science Panel report, page 8:

    Study 2: Kemp (2009 thesis) presented continuous, high resolution constructions of SLR in North Carolina for the past 2,000 years using geological data from Sand Point (Roanoke Island) and Tump Point (Cedar Island).

    “Sand Point”? “Tump Point”? Why do they sound familiar?


    Reduce your CO2 footprint by recycling past errors! <Eschenback, WUWT, 6/23/2011)

    Further Problems with Kemp and Mann (Eschenbach, WUWT 6/26/2011)

    I also invite you to see pages 4 & 5 that list the names and associations of the 13 voluntary members of the CRC Science Panel and the 6 invited non-members who contributed to the report.

  20. chris y writes:

    Look at the authors of AR4 who have affiliations with enviro NGO’s and insurance companies.

    And your evidence that these scientists are frauds is what?

    EternalOptimist writes: Phil C, You should be supporting Mr Droz, unless you too believe that sea levels will rise by 39 inches in the next 90 years.

    I actually don’t care about what he writes about sea level rise. Rather, I challenge him about his attack on unnamed scientists that he himself numbers in the thousands. If he’s so sure they’re wrong (or perhaps fraudulent — it isn’t clear), he should supply names and demonstrate their falsehoods.

  21. Recently, I came across a book called The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham, originally published in 1941. Although a lot of his forecasts did not pan out, he certainly caught hold of something (and others such as Paul Gottfried have followed up on the idea). One thing he didn’t really delve into deeply was the psychology of the managers, or the managerial class, which is certainly on display here – in that their actions seem based on the assumption that they have an inalienable right to make decrees and have them obeyed – regardless of the effects on other parties.

    Whatever the explanation, this is certainly another fascinating episode in the annals of global warming.

  22. Stephen Richards says:
    Phil C believes everything the AGWs tell him to believe.

    Correction: I believe what the scientific community tells me through their research.

  23. At the very least, one can see in this episode the sense of separation that these members of the managerial class have vis a vis the rest of the population, which intriguingly includes the state legislators. (Guess where this could go if left unchecked.)

  24. John Droz writes:

    “It was during this time that a CRC Panel member wrote me saying that they agreed with the Critique, and apologized for signing off on the Panel’s report! The member stated that the Panel was driven by a few activists, and that everyone else simply went along.”

    That is the very same scenario that Prof Richard Lindzen has written about. A few activists insinuate themselves into committees by taking the drudge work no one else really wants, and then leverage their positions to eventually hijack the organization.

    It is a very successful tactic, and it has allowed activists to hijack the AMS, the RS, the APS and most other formerly well repected organizations.

    That sets up the appeals to authority we read here constantly, writtten as if it is preposterous that all those professional societies could be wrong.

    Well, they are wrong when it comes to the “carbon” issue, for which there is still no testable, empirical evidence. [CO2 probably has a small warming effect, but it surely does not raise sea levels by a metre per century; CO2 most likely does not raise sea levels by any measurable amount.]

    Kudos to John Droz. Another crack in the AGW wall has appeared.

  25. Zeke says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:09 am

    I think there ought to be full, healthy discussion about … the Law of the Sea Treaty, which requires all profits from any use of the ocean to be shared with worldwide recipients.

    Ref:
    “full, healthy discussion about our coast and its future” http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/23/1876250/the-states-sea-level-retreat.html#storylink=cpy
    _____________________________________
    Thanks for the link Zeke. It is getting rather hard to keep up with all the attacks on our freedom and our wallets.

  26. CRC seeks middle ground on sea-level plan
    Coastal Review Online | May 13, 2012, By Frank Tursi

    “Where we are with sea-level rise is in the education and dialogue phase,” Bob Emory, the commission’s chairman, said after the meeting. “…..

    But once the report went public, the backlash came swiftly. NC-20, a group representing some coastal counties and development interests, questioned much of the data in the science panel’s report and the basic science underpinning climate change. …

    In the face of such opposition, the Coastal Resources Commission asked the science panel to review the objections. It did so in an addendum that Margery Overton, the panel’s chairwoman, presented at last month’s [April] meeting. She affirmed the panel’s original findings, but noted the uncertainty of its forecasts for future sea-level rise. If the ocean rises at the same rate that it has in the past, the debate is moot, she said.

    “If you use the historical data and do the math, you don’t get a one-meter (39-inch) rise,” said Overton, an engineering professor at N.C. State University. “So the forecasts are based on the expectation that sea-level rise will accelerate in the future. Acceleration is the key.”

    And it could be decades before that happens, Emory noted.

    “If there’s anything in [the report] that we don’t need but will only draw fire, it needs to be taken out,” Emory said. “We’re not through the dialogue phase yet. We’re receiving resolutions from local governments at a fairly rapid pace. I don’t want this policy to be seen as a back-door to regulation.”….

    Overton was pleased with the outcome. ….

    Robert S. Young was less enthusiastic. He’s a geologist who heads the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University. He’s also a member of the science panel and one of the primary authors of the addendum to the original report. …“I agree that this isn’t an emergency, but I don’t think we have 30 years to figure this out,” he said. “Nothing will get better in the next decade. Storm damage will only get worse. Beach re-nourishment projects will only get more expensive. Good planning is about preparing for the future.”

    But first people have to get comfortable with the concept, Emory said. …“I’m not trying to minimize what we might see 50 years from now,” he said. “But we’re not ready to discuss it yet.”

    Not ready to discuss it? Discussion should come before anything else — at least in a free society.

  27. I’ve read numerous articles by physicists regarding parallel universes and have always considered the prospect unknowable at best but highly unlikely. Now, along comes a physicist and convinces me they do exist. He is in one universe and from the other:
    NC should expect a 39 inch SLR by 2100

    With now accepting this strange concept of parallel universes I find I too am in one here on the left coast: I live in the Great State of Washington characterized by an active plate margin deemed (by geologists) to be storing energy enough to bounce our coast around like a bobblehead doll. Meanwhile activists are more concerned about stopping construction of a port to ship coal to Asia. Coal=carbon=death – and all that.

    Anyway, John D., thanks for the report. Well done.

  28. Kind of have to agree with Phil C. “Thousands of scientists off the reservation” begs a lot of questions. What’s more it tends to confound science as a process, with scientists, who are human beings, and therefore have human failings – including an entirely too common propensity to rely on authority, hearsay and faith. Science is the way scientists can fix these things. But, there frequently needs to be motive, before there’s action. Most “scientists” these days are not scientists in the common sense. They are not out there doing “research.” Instead, they are degreed technicians “applying” what they think they have learned, often at someone else’s direction to someone else’s ends. As such they are stuck with supervisors, agenda driven work loads, and the entire field of politically driven decision-making demands that infests the interface between science and politics and society.

  29. Phil C says ‘I actually don’t care about what he writes about sea level rise’

    well you should Phil. This is a story about the real impact of real believers on real people in the USA. Stuff like this wrecks livilhoods and lives. You say you get your beliefs from Scientific research, thats fair enough, but which one
    Hansens 120 inches by 2040
    CRC 39 inches by 2100
    IPCC 23 inches by 2100 ?

    or Mr Droz’s uncertainty – ‘a genuine scientific assessment of the NC SLR situation should be undertaken’

  30. The Colbert video is “unavailable” in the UK. Does he say anything interesting, amusing or true?

  31. I salute you., sir. Exemplary fortitude and endeavour in the face of provocative dissembling. Next stop Agenda 21?

    I very much like your idea of defrocking the climate scientologists. Perhaps they will find a rewarding new career selling reptile lubricants to herpetologists.

  32. Gail Combs inre Law of the Sea Treaty before Senate now:

    “Any royalties collected from U.S. mining would have to go to the United Nations agency International Seabed Authority.
    The treaty also would force the U.S. to share any deep sea technology that most countries do not now have.
    It also would place restrictions on the U.S. Navy by compelling what amounts to an environmental impact statement on the area where it might conduct exercises.”

    Restricting and controlling American’s use of our rich coasts and coastal waters is being done by increments in states, as the article says. I think the international context of the LOSTreaty should be kept in mind in any discussion of coastal regulations based on so-called climate science.

  33. Phil C says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:37 am
    he should supply names and demonstrate their falsehoods.
    ====================
    how about the cars that pass you on the road? if you are going the speed limit they are speeding and breaking the law. have you taken their license plate numbers and filed police reports against them?

  34. Any environmental objections to the Russians drilling for oil around Alaska’s islands? Didn’t think so.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/

    “Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

    The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

    The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

    The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.”

  35. John Droz Jr.,

    I disagree with your suggestion about what to do about scientists “off the reservation”. It reminds me too much of Heidi Cullen’s proposal.

  36. This is a story about the real impact of real believers on real people in the USA. Stuff like this wrecks livilhoods and lives. You say you get your beliefs from Scientific research, thats fair enough, but which one
    Hansens 120 inches by 2040
    CRC 39 inches by 2100
    IPCC 23 inches by 2100 ?

    Considering the inclination of some people who posts at this website to not even accept basic scientific facts — the big one being that burning fossil fuels has caused the atmosphere to warm — I don’t see the value in nitpicking in other areas of research. When people who decide to challenge items like sea level rise forecasts can at least state their position on these more basic matters, then it becomes an issue that might get my interest here.

  37. Mr Droz,

    Thank you so much for your efforts. As a member of a local planning board in the area , I sincerly appreciate folks like you, Pat McElraft and NC-20 for fighting this good fight! I have bookmarked this post and you gave me a lot to review for future reference. The CRC WILL be back with this. It is just a matter of time.

  38. Earle:

    This departure from science, by purported scientists, has become epidemic. I believe that it is THE major technical issue of our time.

    If a scientist eschews scientific methodology to promote personal political agendas, they have abandoned the fundamentals that qualify them as being a scientist. Decertifying them should be an option.

    If you have a better solution for scientists who abdicate science, I’d love to hear it.

  39. Let those who believe the sea will rise 3 feet in the next 100 years sell their land cheap now to those who don’t and move to higher ground.
    Besides, that’s a really slow rise. It will take time, but it will be noticed. Spend the taxpayers’ money to move/preserve infrastructure when it’s obvious it actually IS happening. Right now, it’s only happening on a computer screen.

  40. Phil C:

    With all due respect, none of those sources qualifies as “scientific research.”

  41. johndroz says:
    With all due respect, none of those sources qualifies as “scientific research.”
    What sources are you referring to? I haven’t cited any.

  42. Posted this before but it’s still relevant. Growing up on Folly Beach, SC 40 years ago, I remember a sign on the causway to the island that said something to the efeect of: “In 100 years sea level will be six feet deep at this point” (can’t recall the exact wording). Folly Beach is still there and I still live there. It has erosion problems but they’re caused by the USACE, not sea level rise.

  43. Phil C says ‘…the big one being that burning fossil fuels has caused the atmosphere to warm…’

    I think you will find that most people here accept that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is real, that the planet is warming and that sea levels are rising.
    I think you will also find that that most here do not accept the GHG ‘tipping point’ theory, that the planet is warming to a dangerous level and that sea level rise is accelerating

    So you and I DO agree on the basic scientific facts. Your conclusions lead you to believe that wrecking the livlihoods of people in NC is ‘nitpicking’, my conclusions lead me to agree with Mr Droz, lets get some proper science done here, before more damage is done.

  44. …your first mistake seems to be not realizing that anyone can call themselves a scientist

  45. johndroz says:
    June 11, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    This departure from science, by purported scientists, has become epidemic. I believe that it is THE major technical issue of our time.

    If a scientist eschews scientific methodology to promote personal political agendas, they have abandoned the fundamentals that qualify them as being a scientist. Decertifying them should be an option.

    ===================

    I wholeheartedly agree with that.

  46. I’m sure you are aware of a similar topic up the coast in Virginia as discussed recently by the BBC

    Virginia’s dying marshes and climate change denial

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17915958

    “Dying wetland trees along Virginia’s coastline are evidence that rising sea levels threaten nature and humans, scientists say – and show the limits of political action amid climate change scepticism.
    Dead trees loom over the marsh like the bones of a whale beached long ago.
    In the salt marshes along the banks of the York River in the US state of Virginia, pine and cedar trees and bushes of holly and wax myrtle occupy small islands, known as hummocks.
    But as the salty estuary waters have risen in recent years, they have drowned the trees on the hummocks’ lower edges. If – when – the sea level rises further, it will inundate and drown the remaining trees and shrubs, and eventually sink the entire marsh.
    That threatens the entire surrounding ecosystem, because fish, oysters and crabs depend on the marsh grass for food.
    “These are just the early warning signs of what’s coming,” says avian ecologist Bryan Watts, stepping carefully among the fallen pines.
    The sea level in the Chesapeake Bay area and in south-eastern Virginia is predicted to rise by as much as 5.2ft (1.6m) by the end of the century.”

    All very emotive but the next paragraph says:
    “Ancient geologic forces are causing the land literally to sink, while the amount of water in the oceans is increasing because of global warming, scientists say.”

    That sentence about the land sinking comes and goes as if it’s not important and the article just carries on where it left off.

  47. If the committee members have committed fraud in submitting this lack-of-research report, paid for with taxpayer dollars, then the remedy I would suggest is to ask the NC State Attorney General to seek return of all money paid, imposition of criminal penalties, plus a bar on the personnel responsible from receiving future NC positions or contracts.

  48. Phil C:

    “You say you get your beliefs from Scientific research, thats fair enough, but which one
    Hansens 120 inches by 2040
    CRC 39 inches by 2100
    IPCC 23 inches by 2100 ?”

  49. SLR able to go back in time!

    http://www.digitaldickens.com/content.php?id=74

    Street Floods
    From “Victorian London Street Life” by John Thomson and Adolphe Smith, 1877
    “The sufferings of the poor in Lambeth, and in other quarters of the Metropolis, caused by the annual tidal overflow of the Thames, have been so graphically described as thoroughly to arouse public sympathy. The prompt efforts of the clergy and the relief committees in distributing the funds and supplies placed at their disposal, have done much to allay the misery of the flooded-out districts. Feelings of apprehension and dread again and again rose with the tides, and subsided with the muddy waters as they found their way back into the old channel or sank through the soil. The public have settled down with a sense of relief; and the suffering People returned to rekindle their extinguished fires and clear away the mud and debris from their houses; to reconstruct their wrecked furniture, dry their clothes and bedding, and live on as best they may under this new phase of nineteenth century civilization……”

  50. Duster says:
    June 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Kind of have to agree with Phil C. “Thousands of scientists off the reservation” begs a lot of questions….
    _______________________________
    No it doesn’t not if you have paid attention.

    In North Carolina:

    FDA says CRO Cetero faked trial data; pharmas may need to redo tests

    North Carolina clinical research organization Cetero Research allegedly falsified clinical trial documents and test results over a five-year period, and now an undetermined number of drug companies who worked with the CRO must review their records to determine whether new tests on their drugs are required.

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    ABSTRACT
    …A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
    US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

    Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

    The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn — and therefore officially expunged from the public record — between 2000 and 2010.

    A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification)….

    A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on the benefits of red wine to heart health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years, officials said Wednesday.

    UConn officials said their internal review found 145 instances over seven years in which Dr. Dipak Das fabricated and falsified data, and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has launched an independent investigation of his work.

    Das, a tenured surgery professor and director of UConn Health Center’s Cardiovascular Research Center, has gained national attention in recent years for research into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, which is found in red wine…. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57357036/red-wine-researcher-flagged-for-fake-data/

  51. “Phil C says:

    June 11, 2012 at 10:23 am

    <i.What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures.

    I challenge Mr. Droz to supply those names."

    And I challenge you,Phil C, to give us the names,credentials,and ALL research methods,papers,modelling,etc,of the "scientists" who claim CAGW exists. And no,you do not get off by claiming it is no longer CAGW,but "climate change",because climate always changes,just as sure as the Railroad Engineer Pacachuri(sp) isn't a climate anything(well,except scammer).

  52. Congratulations to John Droz on a splendid Victory. This was truly a David and Goliath Contest and the Good Guys came out on top again. People have had enough of the perversion of Science in the name of Politics and Big Lies.

  53. EternalOptimist says: I think you will find that most people here accept that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is real, that the planet is warming and that sea levels are rising.

    What about the fossil fuels part? Are they or are they not substantially responsible for the rise in temperature? Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you think that the most people here would agree with that too?

  54. Justthinkin says:And I challenge you,Phil C, to give us the names,credentials,and ALL research methods,papers,modelling,etc,of the “scientists” who claim CAGW exists.

    Define “CAGW” first, and define it in scientific terms, and we’ll take it from there. It’s an acronym I see thrown about this website a lot, but which I’ve never run across in the scientific literature.

  55. @ Zeke says:
    June 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Any environmental objections to the Russians drilling for oil around Alaska’s islands? Didn’t think so.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/

    “Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.
    ************************************************************
    Check your facts: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/

  56. Phil C,

    “Catastrophic” has a clear dictionary definition. But since that is not enough for you, my definition of a climate catastrophe is: any prediction or event that falsifies the null hypothesis, causing societal disruption; any prediction or future extrapolation that shows an accelerating, fast rising trend, whether of temperature, sea level, etc., beyond past parameters. They predict it all the time, and this article is just one more example of an attempt to alarm the public.

    See, AGW is not enough for the alarmist crowd. They must show that there is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Where is the money going to come from if they tell the truth, and admit that CO2 emissions are harmless and a net benefit, and that a slightly warmer planet is better for life?

    Thus, they must predict catastrophes, even though they are all imaginary. Their problem is that they cannot produce any evidence of even minor AGW, which remains a conjecture: an untestable, unmeasurable opinion. And that’s where the CAGW advocacy comes in. Climate alarmists are still trying to scare more money out of the public, based on zero evidence.

  57. Here you have the damage a single poor paper may trigger, just because an author does not withdraw, a journal does not care and a scientific institute does not enforce its code of conduct.

  58. The article already noted that the dispute was old, curiousgeorge: “Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. …State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.”

    It is important to watch our waters and mineral rights under this anti-energy administration. They would ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty right now if they could. And they have already rejected an important pipeline from our own northern neighbor. Who is going to build the pipeline now, China? So there is also context for bringing up the lack of environmental concern over Russia’s drilling, while there is caterwauling over our own. Russia has no scruples in developing oil fields and controlling pipelines.

  59. “Ancient geologic forces are causing the land literally to sink, while the amount of water in the oceans is increasing because of global warming, scientists say.”

    I would like to use the quote above to remind everyone that most of us have been brainwashed by Big Brother to associate global warming with “man-made”. If your brain subliminally associated “man-made” with “global warming” then you have been assimilated. Welcome to the hive.

  60. As a resident of North Carolina for all but 7 of my soon-to-be 40 years, North Carolina has made some embarassing headline news recently.

    I have no further comment.

  61. Thank you, John Droz, for taking this issue on.

    I agree thousands of scientists have acquiesced, simply because they have stayed silent. There is such a thing as “sins of omission.” Thankfully there are people like you who have refused to be silent. In fact the silence is increasingly being broken, as more and more comprehend the sheer nonsense they are being spooned.

    Besides the scientists that have stayed silent when they should have spoken out, there are the fools who dance and prance like puppets on strings, seeking funding. Money, or the fear of not having any, has power over us all, but some scientists sell their souls.

    Phil C states we should name names before we make such statements, however it is fairly obvious some scientists have allowed themselves to become puppets, when you read moronic paper after moronic paper attributing every cotton-picking thing known to man to Global Warming. (I personally attribute Phil C to global warming.)

    Besides the people desperate for the funding, there are those in charge of the funding. Soros gets blamed a lot, but there are obviously others. These people have been attempting to create certain results for a long time, and they can be none too pleased to see their long labors falling apart in the face of a growing groundswell of public outrage.

    It is really something to witness the public waking up. I haven’t seen anything like it since the public rose against the Vietnam War. That war took a good thing, (stopping the insanity of the Chinese Chairman,) and mingled it with power politics to a point where the evil started to outweigh the good, and sheer nonsense was foisted on the public, which was fooled for a while but then woke up with a vengeance. Now a similar dynamic is occurring. A good thing, true environmentalism, is mingled with power politics to a point where the evil starts to outweigh the good, and sheer nonsense is being foisted on the public, which was fooled for a while, but is now starting to get really pissed off.

    I wonder what the guys like Soros are thinking. They have worked long and hard and spent billions to achieve a certain scenario, and now see it falling apart at the seams. I am nervous they might attempt a desperate power-grab. After all, they are getting old, (Soros is over eighty,) and have nothing but billions to lose.

    Therefore this is no time for anyone to slack off.

  62. Phil C says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:37 am
    chris y writes:
    ——————-

    Phil C … look at the scoreboard, Mr Droz (NC) – 1 V CRC (activists) nil.

    The work is in front of you to prove the valiant Mr Droz wrong.

  63. PhilC
    What about the fossil fuels part? Are they or are they not substantially responsible for the rise in temperature? Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you think that the most people here would agree
    with that too?

    PhilC, I read this site to learn, I would be extremely interested to read any empirical data you have showing how “fossil fuels” have increased temperatures, and NOT model runs, or ” I read it somewhere” or RC said it is so.
    Thank you

  64. warren says:
    “What about the fossil fuels part? Are they or are they not substantially responsible for the rise in temperature? Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you think that the most people here would agree with that too?”

    PhilC, I read this site to learn, I would be extremely interested to read any empirical data you have showing how “fossil fuels” have increased temperatures, and NOT model runs, or ” I read it somewhere” or RC said it is so. Thank you

    Henry@Warren
    Warren if you just started your search, then you are now somewhere where I was 3 years ago. Took me quite a bit of time to figure out that the test results you and I were looking for (in the right dimensions) do not exist. The idea that CO2 has a net warming effect has been based solely on the closed box experiments as per Tyndal and Svante Arrhenius. The rest is all nonsense “calculations” based on models based on warming development observed on earth. In other words, they identified a problem (warming) and assumed the cause must be us (CO2).
    If you want to learn, it is important that you try to fully understand what I say here:

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011

    In the meantime I did my own stats on this problem and found that the warming of earth came to its highest point in 1994 and it has since been getting colder. So any AGW seems very unlikely.
    Not withstanding all the satellites and all the Berkeley stations I challenge anyone here to tell me what is wrong with my maths…

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    God blesses those (e.g. Droz et al ) who at all times keep to the truth.

  65. Phil C says
    ‘What about the fossil fuels part? Are they or are they not substantially responsible for the rise in temperature? Do you agree or disagree with that? ‘
    The GHG effect is tiny, human contribution to this tiny amount is tiny . It is so small it can hardly be measured except in complex models, and its impact is so small that the temperatures have hardly gone up and in the last 15 years they have even stabilised or gone down.
    Meanwhile , Droz is fighting something that CAN be measured, policy being made on the back of shonky science. If you had any empathy or shred of scientific integrity, you would congratulate and support him. As do I.
    And in the meantime, please remind me what projected sea level rise you believe in

  66. R. Ortiz says:
    June 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
    “What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures.” I wish I could say this is a recent phenomenon, but it goes back over a century. As a result, I wonder how many modern “scientists” even know scientific method and what distinguishes science from non-science? Is it any wonder then that many “scientists” jump onto such political bandwagons as AGW?

    A very good point. It’s hard for non-scientists to appreciate the large numbers of scientists who have a weak understanding of the theory of science.

    Try asking in a pro-AGW forum, how the theory of atmospheric CO2 in situ greenhouse gas warming can be falsified.

  67. As another NC native and resident, I’d like to thank Mr. John Droz, Jr. for his efforts.

    While I have reservations on limiting policy decisions to “particular” science, I find the proposed legislation in line with our state motto: To be, rather than to seem. Inferring to application, we should base policy on what IS, not on what some can make seem to be. After all one can even make water seem “bad”: http://www.dhmo.org/

  68. Way to go John. As another realist-scientist that is serving por nada, I have also found that the AGW scientist of today have totally ignored the requirement of testing a hypothesis with comparisons to empirical observations. Once you depart from the 1980s and 90s and the coincidental parallel rise in CO2 and temperature, the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes begins to fall apart except for the gross rise of the 20th century or the much longer term trends that are probably due to CO2 being released from or absorbed into the oceans as natural drivers change Earth’s temperatures. The AGW crowd cannot handle empirical evidence so keep beating them up with it. The nice thing is that the general public can understand empirical observations whereas all of us are somewhat at the mercy of the extremely complex computer models that are the only source of the catastrophic warming projections. I am particularly thankful that the newly formed “Right Climate Stuff Team” will be tackling the reliability of the data and, particularly, the assumptions that have gone into these models that are yet to have made an accurate forecast even one decade ahead. I don’t know if you attended their presentation at the ICCC-7 conference but in any case, stay tuned.

  69. Brilliant work, John! NC should feel honored to have you represent sanity in this fray. Some of your more uncharitable complainers on this blog do a service to the rest by allowing rebuttal to underscore their silliness, starting with claimed CO2 links to climate and sea-level.

    For CO2, here’s a start: http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html

    For Sea-Level, the NOAA tide gauges are a good start and take subsidence into account, unlike satellite readings that get almost monthly corruptions including GIA vapor additions. In New England, “consultants” attempting to wrest “study funds” at $20K each from coastal communities, have been running amok with dire Sea-Level rise predictions by the meter. Of course, the tide gauges show that millimeters are the better standard to use for the decades measured. I can’t include graphics here, but a recent example will make its way to you shortly.

    I hope you have some idea as to how valuable your intervention is in this area! Thank you!!!

  70. What’s worse is that thousands of scientists are off the reservation, and have no interest in adhering to scientific principles or procedures. The solution (in my opinion) is that such renegades should have their degrees revoked, just as a priest is defrocked for violating his vows.

    Hi John,

    As I pointed out earlier to you in a private response, I’m currently just over the bridge from you in Beaufort, teaching physics. I’m truly busy this week (and back in Durham next week) but maybe we can have lunch sometime in July.

    I assume/hope that you are kidding about revoking degrees, as you do recognize that all this will do is give scientists with the best political skills and cover the ability to de-credential scientists who might have aspergers and/or personality disorders (and hence who suck at politics) but who are really smart and competent. What we really need is a complete LACK of:

    * Star chambers
    * Gatekeeping at Journals
    * Government intervention at a high political level in science in general

    All of these are symptoms of the problem, not parts of the solution. Once you start to de-credential scientists for anything but the most egregious of errors, you squelch science itself and openly invite the victory of the most politically influential and glib. Who do you think will always dominate the process deciding who to defrock? For that matter, defrocking priests, prosecutions for blasphemy or heresy, and other protections of orthodoxy hasn’t worked out too well for the church, either.

    The best solution is WUWT, and the “religious” protection of the open scientific process. The best solution is sheer common sense, used by humans of good will to decide between competing propositions.

    rgb

  71. I actually don’t care about what he writes about sea level rise. Rather, I challenge him about his attack on unnamed scientists that he himself numbers in the thousands. If he’s so sure they’re wrong (or perhaps fraudulent — it isn’t clear), he should supply names and demonstrate their falsehoods.

    I actually think this is a good point. Even in climate science, I rather suspect that the vast majority of scientists are “honest”. That they might be mistaken is what science is all about, but they do have to go with their own best informed opinion.

    The point where lines get crossed — to the extent that they do — is when CAGW science is presented with an appalling lack of non-heuristic error estimation or balanced presentation of evidence against the hypothesis. That this evidence is not presented is understandable — if it were, the “C” in CAGW disappears instantly as highly improbable — but it doesn’t make omitting it good science. Nor does it make the scientists in question overtly dishonest, unless they KNOW that it exists and have thought about it and deliberately omit it to accomplish some secondary agenda. The latter is rather difficult to actually prove, and trying it simply complicates the ultimate resolution of the science. One doesn’t win a lot of scientific debates by prefacing a rebuttal with “My opponent is a liar and a fool…” — not even people that suspect that this might indeed be the case are impressed with rebuttals that attack the person instead of the hypothesis.

    However, Mr. Droz’s frustration is also quite understandable. The hallmark of a politicized “scientific” argument is refusal to present the cons in a pro vs con debate, especially a debate based on a rather debatable Bayesian prior — that Hansen and the Hockey Team’s uber-pessimistic super-high sensitivity model projections are nearly certain to be an accurate picture of future global temperatures, given the utter near-term failure of those projections to predict the last 12 to 13 years of global temperatures and the fact that those projections are steadfastly ignoring the observed, correlated, variability in global bond albedo.

    rgb

  72. John, keep up the good work.
    Just a thought….ice core data seemed to indicate that CO2 followed temperature with a lag of about 800 years. If that is consistent, our increasing CO2 is a result of temperature increases around 1200 AD. Pinning CO2 increases on current anthropogenic sources like burning coal. and other fossil fuels always seemed like grasping at straws. Anyway, the rising CO2 is caused primarily by the increasing ocean temperature, which would also cause thermal expansion, thus SLR. But, certainly not anywhere near 36 inches/century.

  73. Dear Mr. Droz,

    your effort is extraordinary and a blessing for the people of North Carolina.

    As this is the consequence of a poor paper and the unwillingness to retract, I would suggest to take the issue to the source as well.

    My suggestion would be to present the issues with this paper to the editing journal as well, and give them a timeline to respond and retract. Connect this request with liability concerns.

  74. I wonder how people like Phil C. feel when they see the list of Climategate2 emails in which ‘s’cientists use the word ‘fudge’ with regard to their ‘s’cientific calculations and observations….does he try to redefine the meaning of the word ‘fudge’?
    Or does he deny that the ‘s’cientists really used the word?
    What sort of thoughts go through his head when he reads Phil Jones lamenting the ‘lack of warming’ in another email…or when he sees that the latest NOAA graphs have clearly and deliberately cooled the past to make the present look warmer?
    It must be hard being Phil C.

  75. Son
    What is a traitor?
    LADY MACDUFF
    Why, one that swears and lies.
    Son
    And be all traitors that do so?
    LADY MACDUFF
    Every one that does so is a traitor, and must be hanged.
    Son
    And must they all be hanged that swear and lie?
    LADY MACDUFF
    Every one.
    Son
    Who must hang them?
    LADY MACDUFF
    Why, the honest men.
    Son
    Then the liars and swearers are fools,
    for there are liars and swearers enow to beat
    the honest men and hang up them.

    (Macbeth SCENE II. Fife. Macduff’s castle.)

  76. Response to Clyde (June 11 at 11:05am), looking for the company that recently conducted an auction for power in the year 2015. That would be PJM Interconnection, website pjm.com. They serve 13 states in the northeast and midwest. On May 22 there was a Fox News article about the auction.

    The average price of the electrity contracted for 2015 was $136 per MW. PJM’s press release made it sound like a great deal. However, the current average 2012 price is $16 per MW. This is increase of 8.5 times (the average 2015 auction price for PA, where I live, was $167 per MW, a 10.5 times increase.) Since about 2/3 of my $150 monthly electric bill (say $100) is the generation cost, that portion will rise 10.5X to $1050 per month. My annual electric bill will rise from $1800 to (12 x 150) to $13,200 (12 x 1100) assuming the same consumption. This puts my retirement, which I have planned for next year, in jeopardy (hey, maybe I just need to keep working till I drop.) But what happens to those living on the edge of poverty now?

    These are not projections; this is the price for the contracted power. It’s a done deal. The Fox News report said PJM attributed almost all the cost increase to the rapid retirement of numerous coal-fired plants and the resulting need to purchase much higher priced gas and renewable-generated power. And this, of course, is attributable to our dear president and the perverted and politically correct science upon which he relies, and which is funded lavishly by governments and NGO’s around the world.

    When cheap energy disappears, so does our prosperity and the very way of life we have struggled to build.

  77. By the way, since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen about 300 feet, an average of 1.5 feet or 18 inches per century due to continuous melting of ice in the warmer climate. Recently this has slowed to about 8 inches per century. Everything normal and to be expected. Projecting a 39-inch rise by 2100 is completely absurd.

  78. Unreformed Skeptic;
    “The price of energy will necessarily skyrocket.”

    One of those disregarded warnings, whose consequences people really didn’t think about, much less “project” in detail.

    Elections have consequences.

Comments are closed.