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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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 …
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.
<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.
“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?
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.
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
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”
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..!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Phil C believes everything the AGWs tell him to believe. Read what he says with a pinch of cyncism.
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.
A Very Big THANK YOU!
from someone living in North Carolina.
From the CRC Science Panel report, page 8:
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Rahmstorf is a character http://motls.blogspot.ca/2011/12/stefan-rahmstorf-convicted-as-liar.html
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.)