OR THEY COULD TRY STICKING THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS AND GOING "LA LA LA LA LA"

North Carolina tries to outlaw climate models

(Thanks to Lord Greg)

Comments

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, didn't catch the significance, I was looking for my global winter overcoat.

[Joe in Japan]

Judi, this is what we call "political science".

[Jeff Meyerson]

I saw that story last week and just shook my head. If you think Congress is bad (and it is) state legislatures are much, much worse.

[nursecindy]

I completely understand this. It's the Outer Banks so I'm not surprised. They have had a lot of problems with erosion and in fact,about 12 years ago, they had to move the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse 1500 feet because it was in danger. This is a video about the move. It's kind of long but I couldn't find a shorter one. I have to be honest I don't really understand what they're talking about in this article and I haven't heard anything about it on our local news. I will say the Outer Banks are a beautiful place to vacation. I've been there many times. The beaches are highly regulated so you won't see any touristy stuff near them.

[Steve]

King Canute's advisers had a hand in this.

[padraig]

They should outlaw evolution too, since obviously it's not happening there anyway.

[Carl-Bear]

This isn't quite what that socialist rag, New Scientist, is painting it to be. What the bill requires is that regulation and planning be based on actual measurements and not solely on unvalidated models (background: the model that the DCM tried to use couldn't even retroactively "predict" measured rise; it "predicted" a rate of rise several times that observed).

You might look into who pushed this bill before you start making too many jokes about scientifically illiterate politicians.

[Carl-Bear]

Addendum to above: I used to work as a the sci/tech editor for a news aggregator. We finally had to drop New Scientist completely as a source due to... "accuracy issues". Not terribly bad on astrophysics; but on anything related to climate or any other "we can only solve this problem through bigger government and more taxes" type program, you might as well be reading the National Enquirer.

[nursecindy]

(((Carl-Bear)))
padraig, I looked this up just for you.
Some famous people from North Carolina:
1. Andrew Jackson 2. James Polk 3. Charlie Duke (walked on the moon)
Some famous people from Wisconsin
1. Chris Farley 2.Liberace 3. Pee Wee King

[Steve]

And when 2100 comes around and the model is shown to be complete bullsh!t. What then? Will Colbert be there with a snide comment? Political blinders work both ways and scientists begin a project with an intended outcome, invariably they find what they are looking for.

[tash]

nc, how could you miss Houdini and Joe McCarthy?

um, peeps, how bout considering multiple models? Just askin.

[tash]

Favorite Cheese State quote: "My best escape was from Appleton, Wisconsin" - Houdini

hee. my college town.

[Clankie]

How do you sashay down the catwalk modeling a climate ?

[ligirl]

Clankie: they storm the runway

[O the Umanity]

That "39-inch-model" must be the guy-type version, and the "eight-inch-model" is prolly more of the "reality/female observation" version ...

Oh ... sea level?

um ... nevermind ...

[wingnut]

I could not care less whether they outlaw climate models or not.
If they try to outlaw Victoria's Secret models, however we are going to have a problem.

[max]

Note to Judi:

Climate Change goes with religion and baseball as a subject to avoid. People feel very strongly about it and no matter which side you take some people are going to tell you that you are wrong.

[Ralph]

There's no real argument that the climate isn't changing; the debate (such as it is) is about why, how much, for how long, and what the effects will be. Similarly, there's no real argument against the fact that warm water is less dense than cold water, so if the oceans waters warm, they expand. How this will affect sea level is not certain however: warmer water evaporates faster, for example.

The interpretation of data is where models often fail, but excluding a particular hypothesis is unscientific, and no more subject to legislative action than repealing the law of gravity.

If North Carolina wants to legislate a linear progression, why don't they limit state banks to charging only simple interest, instead of compounding it? That is well within their authority.

[O the Umanity]

I'm gonna assume, Ralph, (yes, with all the inherent dangers of "assuming") that yer comment on banking wuz rather in the form of a rhetorical question ...

Bankers contribute more to campaign funds than do the folks who borrow the money, for the most part ...

[MAC]

I moved from Florida to North Carolina because I thought I was moving to a smarter state. Well, not so much. We may soon rival the Sunshine State in being the butt of late-night comedian's jokes. If only we could legislate away the consensus of a huge number of scientists, we could go on plundering our natural resources without regret. Or we can just pretend that everything is just hunky-dory, and go on living as though there'll never be a reckoning. Oh, and AIDS is just a left-wing scam. Because ignoring a problem is a great way to make it go away.

[nursecindy]

MAC? The interstate goes both ways, in case you haven't noticed, and you are free to leave North Carolina at any time. Really! None of us will stop you I promise. I'll even be glad to help you move.

[padraig]

I've been in the triangle of Duke/NC/NC State hanging out with people curing cancer, so I can attest there are smart people in NC. Also up the road in Charlotte (although if they hold Bobcat season tickets that didn't come with an invite to a bbq at Michael Jordan's, they are disqualified).

BUT... in NC and in my own cheesy state there are people who just don't want to hear it, and don't think they should have to, and who think they're smarter than smart people. They are dumb. That's ok, just don't let them, y'know, make laws and stuff to protect their dumbness.