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
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.
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.
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 ?”
Dr. Droz, thanks so much for your efforts from a fellow North Carolinian!
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……”
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:
“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).
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.
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?
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.
@ur momisugly 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/
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.
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.
Rouzer is my state senator. I’ll have to send him a note about this…
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
The point of the bill is to conform regulatory rule-making to scientific evidence w/r/t sea level:
http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/06/11/a-set-of-facts-on-nc-sea-level-rise-that-are-hard-to-dispute-and/
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
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.
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
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.
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/