By Allen Reed
The Associated Press
© June 12, 2012
The North Carolina Senate has approved a bill that ignores scientists’ warnings of rising sea levels.
Senators approved the bill on a 34-to-11 vote Tuesday. The measure received little fanfare and no senators spoke in opposition to the measure. The bill now goes back to the House for a vote.
HB 819 says that only the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission can calculate how fast the sea is rising for state governmental purposes and those calculations must be based on historic trends, which are much lower than the science panel’s projections.
A state-appointed science panel warned sea levels could rise by more than three feet by 2100 and threaten more than 2,000 square miles of coastal land.
N.C. Senate approves sea level calculation bill | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
The IPCC forecast range is 7-24 inches of sea level rise. The 3 foot+ forecasts are from a few fringe lunatics who lack basic mathematics and science skills.
Kudos to North Carolina for standing up and fighting back.
If Ca. can pass laws to stop bad weather and stop rising temperatures, then why can’t N.C. do the same for sea levels? The media is saying they are passing a law to stop the rising sea levels. SO? /s
The term “semiempirical modeling” is used, which is a code word for throwing out anything empirical and speculating wildly using a model. The basis of the claim that sea level rise is taking a hockey stick shape is based on:
(a) a proxy reconstruction (that they admit is inconsistent with the same proxy when applied elsewhere)
(b) one tide gauge (this apparently covers the entire planet and is the empirical bit)
(c) a climate model.
On top of all that Mann lends a hand to make sure they get their maths right. 😉
Junk science at it’s best:
Why should AP stop at the “state appointed science panel”? Other alarmist morons have predicted far worse. Does the panel somehow have more credibility?
I wrote about this the other day. To get to the magical 1 meter rise by 2100, the oceans will have to average over 11mm/yr from now to get there. Using Topex, Jason I and Jason II, just like CU, we see that they’re lying. The rise is decelerating even if we use their “data”. After 20 years of observation I’ve got a total trend of 2.4mm/yr, but declining from 3.1mm/yr in the first 9 years (Topex), dropping to 2mm/yr in the next 7.5 years (Jason I) and ending with 1.44mm/yr (Jason II) Any bets this gets fixed before Rio?
Thank You John Droz!
Who is John Droz?
NC has shown some sense but here is an article that is pure pig trough swill from University of Washington (and partly paid for by the European Commission.)