Science or political beliefs

Four members of the N. C. Coastal Resources Commission’s “Science Panel” have criticized state legislators for prohibiting state agencies from using “global warming” alarmist predictions in coastal development regulations—a prudent and appropriate law to limit bureaucratic power that could potentially be used to take private property.

A Wilmington StarNews article (link) left some unanswered questions: Are the members climate scientists? On what evidence do they claim that the “…rate of sea-level rise over the next century would be higher than it was over the past century”? What political agenda drives the Panel member’s criticism?

Credible scientists would not propose public policy based on unproven beliefs with incomplete evidence. State Senator Bill Rabon understands that. He noted that projections and “forecast data” based on modeling can’t be proven. Further, models can be manipulated to support beliefs and conclusions desired.

In fact, two years ago Phil Jones, a once respected climatologist at the University of East Anglia in England, described as “the father of an alarming global temperature (“hockey stick”) curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming,” was discredited when his “sloppy,” falsified and exaggerated work was exposed. (link)

An investigation of his data by Steve McIntyre, a financier and mathematician in Toronto, Canada, exposed Jones’ work as “a sham.” This initiated scrutiny of corrupt climate scientists now known as “Climategate.”

Maybe it’s time that our state legislators investigated the CRC’s “Science Panel.” Based on press reports some members seem to be less concerned with science than with politics.

Reinhard Huttl, a German research scientist and head of the German Academy of Science and Engineering, has observed that increasingly scientists “want to be politicians.” He explains that: “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in light of new findings.” “Scientific research,” Huttl says, “is all about results, not beliefs.”

Healthy skepticism and good sense

Thank goodness we have many new state legislators who aren’t gullible and pressured by environmental activists and bureaucratic pseudoscience. It takes political courage to oppose the demands of powerful self-serving groups working against the best interests of all of our citizens.

Many representatives in the General Assembly seem to understand the disastrous economic implications of allowing global warming myths to drive political policy. They refuse to let state agencies impose “worst-case” guestimates of sea-level rise in their coastal development policies through legislation.

Fortunately, a “controversial” bill supported by local Senators David Rouzer and Thom Goolsby has bipartisan support. Even some Democrats understand the folly of basing policy on alarmists who predict the unpredictable about the Earth’s temperature rising excessively with dire consequences for mankind.

The assumed increase in rise of sea level is the issue reported in Wilmington StarNews articles. (link) The state Coastal Resources Commission’s “Science Panel on Coastal Hazards” (even the name implies political agenda) promotes the presumption that sea levels on the North Carolina coast will rise 39 inches by the year 2100. The CRC panel believes “there is consensus among scientists” that sea levels will rise. They are wrong.

The results from international surveys of climate scientists prove that there is no scientific consensus on the cause of the current warming, the reliability of predictions of future temperatures and whether possible warming would be harmful or beneficial. (link)

Two German environmental scientists surveyed 530 climate scientists from 27 countries in 1996 and 2003. Nearly two-thirds disagreed or were uncertain that climate models can predict future climate conditions. Over half of the scientists have little or no confidence in the ability of anyone to predict climate conditions that might occur within 10 years, or 100 years.

Most importantly, nearly half of the scientists disagree that “Natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion.” More than 10 percent were undecided.

These data clearly show that it would be disastrous for our elected representatives to empower government officials to make policy that would regulate private decisions on land use and development based on future conditions so clearly unconfirmed and in dispute by climate scientists.