Oh (North) Carolina!

[Hansmeister]

Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

That's a Tropical Storm, not a Hurricane.

Don't confuse the anti-science crowd with facts.

it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific.  Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.

[Viking]

Don't confuse the anti-science crowd with facts.

it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific.  Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.

Other way round. Climatology and Biology are real sciences. There is an actual real consensus on both Climate Change and Genetic Change.

I'm not telling you what to belive. But, Hansy, you need to be absolutely clear on the issue; almost all of the scientists (99.9% plus for biology 90% plus for climatology) agree, respectively, that climate change and evolution are happening. Dispute the facts and interpretations is you want but it is false to try to claim that the specialists on these topics have not already reached a consensus and are confused why laymen keep contesting the issue.

[Jacob]

it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific.  Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.

Do you believe your own lies?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't know anything about the scientific projections on sea level changes in North Carolina. However in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause. There is broad consensus on some level of climate change. There is not consensus on how much warming has already happened, how much will happen in the 21st century--and almost every paper I've ever read that makes any type of statement about specific projections is filled with tons of qualifiers. Mostly because real scientists aren't doomsayers, they lay out the facts and the likelihoods, cover their ass from here to Sunday and move on.

There's a super liberal forum I was banned from years ago but still read sometimes where you literally had an Australian scientist, a Ph.D. holding research scientist, trying to debunk some ridiculous claim on global warming. Mind you, this scientist was no AGW-denier, he was denying something that one of the forum morons had claimed (something like: "The Earth will be like Venus because of runaway greenhouse effect in the next 200 years. Something no reputable scientist believes), and even though his denial was exactly what you'd expect from an actual scientist people have gotten so hyper-responsive to any criticism of any global warming claim spewed out by anyone that even if you object to predictions that are fanciful and not based on scientific research you're likely to get labeled a "denier."

[Jacob]

However in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause.

Fair enough, but there's a bit of a gap between a lack of consensus on fantastic predictions and what Hansie is saying. Similarly, there's some distance between noting that there's a lack of consensus on fantastic predictions on one hand, and a legislature (potentially) mandating scientific conclusions and methodologies to get the results they'd like for economic reasons.

[Razgovory]

it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific.  Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.

Do you believe your own lies?

Honestly?  I don't think he does.  Remember he worked in PsyOps for a while.  Spouting nonsense is their stock and trade.

[Jacob]

Honestly?  I don't think he does.  Remember he worked in PsyOps for a while.  Spouting nonsense is their stock and trade.

So it's basically an Overton window play? Makes sense. It probably works too.

[Scipio]

In a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words "Nuh-unh!" into the NC Constitution.

Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers'  lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because ... because ... well, SHUT UP, that's because why.

That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.

Here's a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: "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 seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ..." It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.

Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

Doesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels?  Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

[Barrister]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

You're no prosecutor.

[CountDeMoney]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

You're no prosecutor.

OH SNAP ITS ON NOW

[Martinus]

While Hans is ridiculous as usual, it is not exactly true that legislators never intervene in scientific issues, although this usually concerns things like medicine where the harm that crazy scientific theories can cause is more pronounced. 

[Hansmeister]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

What scientific process?  Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.

The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all.  They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.

They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.

[Viking]

I don't know anything about the scientific projections on sea level changes in North Carolina. However in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause. There is broad consensus on some level of climate change. There is not consensus on how much warming has already happened, how much will happen in the 21st century--and almost every paper I've ever read that makes any type of statement about specific projections is filled with tons of qualifiers. Mostly because real scientists aren't doomsayers, they lay out the facts and the likelihoods, cover their ass from here to Sunday and move on.

Agree. We don't have much experience and knowledge of climate change events so we cannot make any kind of categorical statements about what the effect of climate change is going to be. We know what kind of things will happen but we cannot specifically say what will happen at each specific place and time. That is why all attempts at prediction include tons of qualifiers and caveats.

There's a super liberal forum I was banned from years ago but still read sometimes where you literally had an Australian scientist, a Ph.D. holding research scientist, trying to debunk some ridiculous claim on global warming. Mind you, this scientist was no AGW-denier, he was denying something that one of the forum morons had claimed (something like: "The Earth will be like Venus because of runaway greenhouse effect in the next 200 years. Something no reputable scientist believes), and even though his denial was exactly what you'd expect from an actual scientist people have gotten so hyper-responsive to any criticism of any global warming claim spewed out by anyone that even if you object to predictions that are fanciful and not based on scientific research you're likely to get labeled a "denier."

This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.

[Scipio]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

You're no prosecutor.

Whatevs.  You people don't even have useful laws.  You're all so fucking nice.

[Razgovory]

Really?  My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process.  But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?

What scientific process?  Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.

The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all.  They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.

They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.

So, who would you have us trust in climate studies?  Are there any other parts of accepted science you don't like?