Conservatives and Global Warming - Page 59 - Politics and Economics

13ball · 06-01-2012, 02:54 PM

Sea level projections published since 2006 have been well above the AR4 range. This is because the IPCC did not even attempt to include ice sheet dynamics. The AR5 will show this change.

See here.

NewOldGuy · 06-01-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashington

I read the bill. Did you? Go read section E.
<snip>
It also says that unless The Commission requests it, NO data will be provided at all.

I think you are confusing their structure are for who is telling who what to do. The "Commisssion" refers to the Coastal Resources Commission, i.e. the state government policy agency involved. The "Division of Coastal Resources" refers to the actual staff and departments that work under the direction of the CRC. The CRC makes the rules under which the Division staff acts. One is executive, the other is bureaucracy. Same agency.

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/CRC/crc.htm

So they basically made a rule that if they ask for sea level predictions for purposes of setting policy, that only historical trends will be used and no accelerated models.

It's a pretty prudent position to take when the repercussions affect all businesses, landowners, and state recreation areas on the coast. Why would they want to base building and planning policy on flaky models that nobody can agree on?

ChromePony · 06-01-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

Lol, that isn't what they did. Did you even read the source? That blog post twists it into something it's not.

First, it's a state government administrative policy. The rule says only one state agency can give official predictions of sea level rise, the one that is supposed to do that kind of thing. For matters of policy and planning (mostly related to oceanfront land use), the Division of Coastal Management can make linear predictions based on historical records, but that no state policies will be based on accelerated predictions (aka speculative GW models).

Seems very reasonable to me.

Putting aside the question of the 1m estimate and all that...this is a quote from the bill.

Quote:

The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to develop rates of sea-level rise and shall do so only at the request of the Commission. These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. 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.

There aren't too many ways you can linearly extrapolate something, so this bill isn't just limiting who can make predictions, it's actually writing a specific scientific prediction into law and saying there is no room for debate. That's pretty terrible.

suzzer99 · 06-01-2012, 11:19 PM

jfc

||.||.|| · 06-02-2012, 12:33 AM

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman & Gregory Mande

Quote:

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Quote:

Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks. Derived from Supplementary Table S4, Model 1. Low and high reflect values set at −1 s.d. and +1 s.d. on the composite Science literacy/numeracy scale (see Supplementary Information). Responses on the 0–10 risk scale (M=5.7, s.d.=3.4) were converted to z-scores to promote ease of interpretation. Confidence intervals reflect the 0.95 level of confidence.

Jake7777 · 06-02-2012, 01:57 AM

Heirarchical Individualists ignoring the primary finding of certain studies ITT

13ball · 06-02-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ||.||.||

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman & Gregory Mande

It's a small effect, but this study fits in with the idea that skepticism of climate change is ideological and not based on the evidence.

miajag · 06-11-2012, 09:37 AM

Virginia Lawmaker Says Sea Level Rise is a "Left-Wing Term"

Quote:

State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the “sea level rise” study in the General Assembly to one on “recurrent flooding,” said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.

He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?

Montrealcorp · 06-11-2012, 01:05 PM

and the paradox continue for republican....

even with lot of scientific evidences and observations , they disregard global warming,
like darwin evolution theory !

but he, they have no freaking proof on god existing and they firmly belief god create earth in 7 days with 0 evidence.

so we must believe in all the god garbage pro-life etc on faith without any freaking scientific data but when u bring some ( with global warming,darwin evolution) on issue they are agaisnt , its never enough .

pathetic.

anyway lets say u win at the loto once in billion chance and u right, global warming wasnt true.

is it bad to do better for our envirronnement to find cleaner energy and try to make less waste ?
obv not but they still fight.

from north ( how can they argue about climate change living in texas for example), u wouldnt belive compared to 1970, we simply have 1 'real' winter each 4 years now instead of 1 winter every year.
we had snow in october now, often we are not even sure to have snow on christmas, it passes really close each years.

anyway , asking 100% proof in science means u dont know what science is .
u can ask overwhelming evidence with science but u cant ask 100% for starter and why dont u live under the same principale for god and evolution concept ...

i rather be wrong and do too much by trying to prevent global warming when it doesnt exist than doing nothing to prevent global warming and ending up finding global warming does exist .

if your good at poker, u know exactly what im talking about. ( 100bb deep final table wsop, do u call a shove with 99 when u 3bet pf ?).
the benefits is too low in case you are right compared to when the chance u are wrong, the negative point are too high.

the results are tooo catastrophic in case u are wrong ( global warming exist and u did nothing ) when u compared it to the case when u are right ( u did something about global warming and it does exist or even if it doesnt its fine anyway) .

NewOldGuy · 06-11-2012, 01:16 PM

The backstory of the North Carolina CRC rule on predicting sea level rises:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/1...na/#more-65434

And more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/2...a-level-study/

Money2Burn · 06-11-2012, 02:27 PM

Lol at that guy thinking that NC is the epicenter for the debate on sea level rise in the US.

ChromePony · 06-11-2012, 06:35 PM

So after reading that first link it seems like the author was mad that the Commission practiced poor science by basing the findings on just a single peer reviewed article. His solution is therefore to take science completely out of the equation and let politicians decide how much the sea will rise. Makes sense to me.

Money2Burn · 06-12-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChromePony

So after reading that first link it seems like the author was mad that the Commission practiced poor science by basing the findings on just a single peer reviewed article. His solution is therefore to take science completely out of the equation and let politicians decide how much the sea will rise. Makes sense to me.

I don't know if you read any of that guys "Critique" or not, but I found it entertaining. Some bizzare stuff in there.

Quote:

Furthermore, why would the Science panel restrict themselves to “published” reports. Does “published” somehow imply more credibility? [No it does not.]

grando1.0 · 06-12-2012, 08:10 PM

haha that's tongue-in-cheek, right?

Money2Burn · 06-12-2012, 08:16 PM

No, amazingly it's not. He Thought it was an important enough critique to include in his first paragraph, too.