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.
Local coverage here: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/11179532/
Pretty one-sided.
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.
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!!!
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
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
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.
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.
Well done sir, thank you.
I’ll add a well done to this, as another resident of Coastal NC (Wilmington)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.