The North Carolina Legislature

[Perknose]

. . . Vigorously promoting fact-denying ignorance through legislation!

When North Carolina got bad news about what its coast could look like thanks to climate change, it chose to ignore it.

In 2012, the state now in the path of Hurricane Florence reacted to a prediction by its Coastal Resources Commission that sea levels could rise by 39in over the next century by passing a law that banned policies based on such forecasts.

The legislation drew ridicule, including a mocking segment by comedian Stephen Colbert, who said: “If your science gives you a result you don’t like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved.”

I hear they've got some interesting weather about to hit. Goddamn libruhls are no doubt to blame.

 

[Greenman]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

Ignoring observable reality doesn’t seem absurd?

Ok then.

 

[zinfamous]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

Good job. Boldly reminding us how preposterously absurd this really is. It's totally in our faces, too.

 

[fskimospy]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

Why doesn't that seem absurd?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Why doesn't that seem absurd?

Because clearly if there's an accelerated rate of increase in sea levels over the last ten years that far and away exceeds the rates of increase for the last 100 year average then the last 100 is the way to go.

Duh.

 

[realibrad]

To be clear, we are talking about sea level rise being above what they projected. We are talking inches which is nothing when storm surge comes in from a hurricane and is in feet. Their low projections are dumb, but, in net for this storm its not a huge impact right now.

The larger issue is simply their denial of climate change.

 

[zinfamous]

To be clear, we are talking about sea level rise being above what they projected. We are talking inches which is nothing when storm surge comes in from a hurricane and is in feet. Their low projections are dumb, but, in net for this storm its not a huge impact right now.

The larger issue is simply their denial of climate change.

how are inches nothing, when the increasing intensity and frequency of these storms is observably real? The impact of the surges stem from the average increase in sea level. AFAIK, these relationships don't scale linearly.

 

[realibrad]

how are inches nothing, when the increasing intensity and frequency of these storms is observably real? The impact of the surges stem from the average increase in sea level. AFAIK, these relationships don't scale linearly.

Because a rise in sea level is not really driving this hurricane. Denying climate change will mean they are not ready for more hurricanes, but, hurricanes hitting them is not something totally new. Saying sea level rise will be less is stupid, but, its not what drives current weather. Talking about climate change and the broad effects it will have to me seems more relevant.

People are going to associate sea level rise with causing hurricanes. More ocean surface area will contribute, but, that is a much smaller focus vs what is happening in total.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Because a rise in sea level is not really driving this hurricane. Denying climate change will mean they are not ready for more hurricanes, but, hurricanes hitting them is not something totally new. Saying sea level rise will be less is stupid, but, its not what drives current weather. Talking about climate change and the broad effects it will have to me seems more relevant.

People are going to associate sea level rise with causing hurricanes. More ocean surface area will contribute, but, that is a much smaller focus vs what is happening in total.

No one is saying sea levels cause hurricanes. They are saying a rise in sea levels increases the amount of people/property/infrastructure that is exposed to risk in the event of a storm surge.

Storms of the same strength, or even lesser strength, will cause more damage if not addressed.

 

[realibrad]

No one is saying sea levels cause hurricanes. They are saying a rise in sea levels increases the amount of people/property/infrastructure that is exposed to risk in the event of a storm surge.

Storms of the same strength, or even lesser strength, will cause more damage if not addressed.

I disagree I guess. The OP said "I hear they've got some interesting weather about to hit. Goddamn libruhls are no doubt to blame." If we are talking about the weather and who is to blame, and then linking to how they are denying the science about the sea level, then he looks to be connecting the two.

 

[vi edit]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

I mean if 10,000 people died of overdoses historically and in the last 5 years it's been 100,000 it would be absurd to look at recent events. Right?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I disagree I guess. The OP said "I hear they've got some interesting weather about to hit. Goddamn libruhls are no doubt to blame." If we are talking about the weather and who is to blame, and then linking to how they are denying the science about the sea level, then he looks to be connecting the two.

Maybe they are talking about blame for all the damage that will occur by failing to address the increased risk of storm surges due to higher sea levels? Is that possible? I mean, everyone else here seems to understand it that way. Except you that is. So are we all misunderstanding or is it possibly you?

 

[realibrad]

Maybe they are talking about blame for all the damage that will occur by failing to address the increased risk of storm surges due to higher sea levels? Is that possible? I mean, everyone else here seems to understand it that way. Except you that is. So are we all misunderstanding or is it possibly you?

Its possible I am misunderstanding sure. That is why I started out with "to be clear" leaving the option open that I might be misunderstanding but that I wanted to see.

 

[umbrella39]

Ignoring observable reality doesn’t seem absurd?

Ok then.

Just the usual Green shit and run... Felix would be so proud...

 

[zinfamous]

Because a rise in sea level is not really driving this hurricane.

That isn't the argument. I stated that higher sea levels result in greater impacts from a Hurricane, not that they cause them.

Maybe it wasn't that clear: the second sentence.

 

[realibrad]

That isn't the argument. I stated that higher sea levels result in greater impacts from a Hurricane, not that they cause them.

Maybe it wasn't that clear: the second sentence.

Then its a good think that I did not start this thread in response to you eh? Maybe that was not clear, as my post did not quote you in any way.

 

[brycejones]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

The reason why GOP is wrong repeatedly when it comes to its polices. Faith over facts.

Thanks for bringing your idiocy to the forefront and being honest about it.

 

[brycejones]

That isn't the argument. I stated that higher sea levels result in greater impacts from a Hurricane, not that they cause them.

Maybe it wasn't that clear: the second sentence.

Must be in response to a realibrad post.

 

[sdifox]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

Ignoring new data is not scientific.

 

[dank69]

Looks like God is about to punish the Carolinas for being too liberal. Checkmate, @Perknose

 

[dyna]

Maybe they are talking about blame for all the damage that will occur by failing to address the increased risk of storm surges due to higher sea levels? Is that possible? I mean, everyone else here seems to understand it that way. Except you that is. So are we all misunderstanding or is it possibly you?

I think this article is trying to relate two things that are not related. The 2012 decision is more about climate change and an increase in sea levels over 100 years which if you want to be objective, is a really high number. This ruling may have been to protect existing residents from having to deal with insurance policy changes, building codes etc... to protect/prepare from the 39 inch increase in sea levels.

 

[alien42]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

It's as absurd as you are.

 

[fskimospy]

I think this article is trying to relate two things that are not related. The 2012 decision is more about climate change and an increase in sea levels over 100 years which if you want to be objective, is a really high number. This ruling may have been to protect existing residents from having to deal with insurance policy changes, building codes etc... to protect/prepare from the 39 inch increase in sea levels.

I think you may misunderstand the article. It was not about updating codes to somehow comply with 100 years of sea level rise in the future, it was saying that the government was prohibited from considering the fact that sea levels are rising much faster now than they were 100 years ago when making regulations.

This is utterly insane and just total denial of reality. If sea levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 100 years ago there is no sane reason why the government should not be allowed to incorporate that knowledge into their decision making.

 

[Sunburn74]

"General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase".
Suddenly it doesn't seem so absurd.

Me: "Hey this guy just bought a gun, and took out a two page ad in the paper saying he's going to shoot you tomorrow at 8am as you're getting out of your car; you may want to talk to the police or something"
You: "I can only act on expired data and historical trends and evidence about shootings. I've never been shot at before so nothing to do or worry about"

Tomorrow comes and you get shot. Doesn't seem absurd at all.