Successfully reported this slideshow.
Activate your 14 day free trial to unlock unlimited reading.
Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:
When a hypothesis is proposed,
it is up to the advocates to PROVE its legitimacy
(not the other way around).
The Process is called the Scientific Method —
which involves a:
3) transparent, and
4) empirical based analysis.
In the case of
NC Sea Level Rise,
this has yet to be done!
Is every priest a holy person?
Is every lawyer a law-abiding citizen?
Is every scientist a promoter of science?
Just because some scientists do a study,
does not make that report scientific.
There are thousands of scientists who
are promoting personal or political agendas!
What makes a study “scientific” is that it
follows the standards of Science.
Relevant Carl Sagan Quotes To Ponder —
1 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology,
in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
2 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science
there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.
3 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and
technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for
awhile, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and
power is going to blow up in our faces.
Did the authors of the 2010
“NC SLR Assessment Report” meet the
fundamental standards of Science?
Start with a belief
and then find sources to “confirm” it.
Here are examples of SLR experts, who do
not share the beliefs of the NC authors.
None of them were even mentioned.
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, William Briggs, Richard Carroll,
Dr. Robert Carter, Tim Curtin, Dr. Willem de Lange, Dr. Robert Dean,
Dr. Philip Finck, Pieter Folkens, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. William Gray,
Dr. Simon Holgate, Dr. James Houston, Dr. Sherwood Idso,
Dr. Stephen Knowles, Dr. David Legates, Steve McIntyre,
Tom Moriarity, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, Dr. James O'Brien,
Dr. Cliff Ollier, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., Dr. Nicola Scafetta,
Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Walter Starck, Dr. David Stockwell,
Dr. Robert Wagner, Phil Watson, Anthony Watts, Dr. Eduardo Zorita.
One of the authors of the report subsequently wrote me —
I Enjoyed your Critique* of the SLR report. To my discredit, I did not
actively participate in the Science Panel development of the report, as I
relied on others on the panel who seemed to be engaged in the subject.
I was remiss in giving my OK to the panel's projections...”
The conclusions of the 2010 “NC SLR Assessment
report” are entirely based on one assumption:
that man-made global warming will have a major
impact on our weather over the rest of this century.
This assumption comes from the UN’s IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
For those who question that assumption, there is
one standard answer given: this is the conclusion of
the world’s experts, assembled by the IPCC.
But wait a minute...
The IPCC also supposedly assembled
the world’s experts (oceanographers, etc),
to assess the Sea Level Rise situation too.
Hmmm. What did these world-class experts conclude?
That by 2100 their best guess is that
Sea Level Rise would be between 7 to 22 inches.
In other words, the IPCC’s experts,
said that the SLR would be about 15 inches.
Remember that this 15 inches
is based on two major assumptions, that:
1) global warming would continue, and
2) this would cause sea level rising to accelerate.
There are many experts that dispute
one or both of these assumptions,
and conclude that the IPCC’s
15” SLR projection is too high.
The authors of the 2010 NC SLR Assessment Report
took the opposite position.
They said that the conclusions of the IPCC’s
world-class experts was totally wrong, and too low.
Compare their 39 inches to the
IPCC’s 15 inches. If the NC authors are right
then the IPCC is over 100% wrong.
If the IPCC and its world-class experts are so right
about global warming that questioning them is heresy,
then why is it ok for the NC panel to say that the IPCC
and it’s world-class experts are so wrong about SLR?
Is the IPCC an unimpeachable source of authority,
Two key conclusions about the 2010 NC SLR Risk Assessment Report:
1 - It is a political document, not a scientific report,
2 - It contradicts the IPCC’s SLR findings.
Many indications to date say that another NC SLR
study* in the pipeline is following a similar
unscientific path. Unless this is fixed, this will be an
egregious waste of time, money and resources.
*NC SLR Risk Management Study (<<www.ncsealevelrise.com>>)
Showing several possible 2100 SLR scenarios,
without identifying the probabilities of each,
will be very confusing to citizens and legislators.
[A skeptic would say that this is intentional.]
When panel members are selected for such studies
it should NOT be based on their political affiliations,
but rather should be a cross-section
of competent people.
Different perspectives should be a requirement.
No technical NC law or consequential regulation
should be enacted
until a proper cost-benefits analysis has been done.