North Carolina tries to outlaw climate models

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
Political satirist Stephen Colbert's solution to unfavourable climate science is simple: "If your science gives you a result that you don't like, pass a law saying that the result is illegal. Problem solved."
Legislators in North Carolina are apparently of the same mindset. When a state-appointed commission announced that North Carolinians could expect 39 inches of sea-level rise by 2100, the Senate responded with a bill that legally prevents the Division of Coastal Management from using the climate model that forecasts fast-rising sea levels. Instead, the legislators would like to see coastal management use only a linear model, which predicts a mere 8-inch rise by the same year.
The 8-inch model, based solely on historical records from the last 100 years, flies in the face of modern climate science. Sea level rise is due to a combination of climate-driven factors: warmer temperatures cause ocean water to expand, and rising temperatures are melting the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. The combined feedback makes for exponential – not linear – growth. Yet the North Carolina bill states: "Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise."
"This is unprecedented," says Orrin Pilkey, professor emeritus of geology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "It's the first time a law has dictated the shape of a curve."
NC-20, the group behind the bill, has argued that incorporating the 39-inch predictions would be an enormous economic burden on coastal communities. "The legislature has declined to face the problem of what we're going to do about it, and instead has attacked the science," contends Pilkey.
Though the bill passed the Senate by 34 votes against 11 and seems poised to make a smooth run through the House, Pilkey and other climate scientists are hoping that the governor will veto it.


source
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
this is the absolute worst example of legislation I have ever seen. Including the one about pigeons not being allowed to fly over some town or other on sundays
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
If you read the law it says only those counties along the coast can pass legislation regarding rising sea levels. Everyone knows that is insane; imagine if Saskatchewan was unable to make laws regarding sea level.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
If you read the law it says only those counties along the coast can pass legislation regarding rising sea levels. Everyone knows that is insane; imagine if Saskatchewan was unable to make laws regarding sea level.
Global warming and high sea levels were a blessing to SKin the past. Just look at all the potash we have now.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
Saskatchewan: 4,567 ft (1,392 m) above sea level in the Cypress Hills.
Lowest--700 ft (213 m) above sea level at Lake Athabasca.
(HowStuffWorks "Geography of Saskatchewan")

By the time Saskatchewan is underwater....North Carolina would have to
revisit its ideas on climate models, I'd guess.
I'm looking forward to Hudson Bay flooding MB so we have have seal bashing in Yorkton sponsored by Pilsner.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Saskatchewan: 4,567 ft (1,392 m) above sea level in the Cypress Hills.
Lowest--700 ft (213 m) above sea level at Lake Athabasca.
(HowStuffWorks "Geography of Saskatchewan")

By the time Saskatchewan is underwater....North Carolina would have to
revisit its ideas on climate models, I'd guess.

You can explain it to them as they're clinging to life rafts and floating down your street. LOL
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
Saskatchewan: 4,567 ft (1,392 m) above sea level in the Cypress Hills.
Lowest--700 ft (213 m) above sea level at Lake Athabasca.
(HowStuffWorks "Geography of Saskatchewan")

By the time Saskatchewan is underwater....North Carolina would have to
revisit its ideas on climate models, I'd guess.

Ok well i thought it unliekly that it was close to sea level, but walter brought SK up in the first place... what's the relevance?
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Saskatchewan: 4,567 ft (1,392 m) above sea level in the Cypress Hills.
Lowest--700 ft (213 m) above sea level at Lake Athabasca.
(HowStuffWorks "Geography of Saskatchewan")

By the time Saskatchewan is underwater....North Carolina would have to
revisit its ideas on climate models, I'd guess.

I was biking this afternoon in a field that was 2 meters below sea level. Luckily a hefty chunk of my taxes is spent to pump water.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I was biking this afternoon in a field that was 2 meters below sea level. Luckily a hefty chunk of my taxes is spent to pump water.

Yes, and NC has some low areas that could end up a meter below sea level. If they plan accordingly it's not so difficult. If they plan like dumb asses and ignore facts, well then they're just planning to fail.
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Saskatchewan: 4,567 ft (1,392 m) above sea level in the Cypress Hills.
Lowest--700 ft (213 m) above sea level at Lake Athabasca.
(HowStuffWorks "Geography of Saskatchewan")

By the time Saskatchewan is underwater....North Carolina would have to
revisit its ideas on climate models, I'd guess.

Yeah, the Cypress Hills is a really nice area..





Look I know we need to mine resources and jobs that come with them are important to our economy.. however, when we are all done destroying this beautiful country and we have nothing left but polluted cesspools and toxic lakes... then what?