Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NC Planners May Be Barred From Using Speculative Sea Level Rise Predictions

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the individual-frames-can-imply-motion dept.

Earth 419

ideonexus writes "Republicans in North Carolina are floating a bill that would force planners to only consider historical data in predicting the sea-level rise (SLR) for the state as opposed to considering projections that take Global Warming into account. NC-20, the pro-development lobbying group representing twenty counties along the NC coast, is behind the effort and asserts that the one-meter prediction would prohibit development on too much land as opposed to SLR predictions of 3.9 to 15.6 inches." Scientific American has an acerbic take on the bill.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


first! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169835)

second time today! wowowowow

Legislating Security (3, Insightful)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40170581)

If only these annoying science-based predictions could be reined in, we won't have to worry about the North Carolina outer banks washing away...

Hard to insure (5, Interesting)

utoddl (263055) | about 2 years ago | (#40169845)

That's public sector planners. Insurance companies will use whatever sources they think are reasonable, so some of this to-be-planned development may be hard to insure.

Re:Hard to insure (0, Troll)

ravenshrike (808508) | about 2 years ago | (#40169935)

Well, until they look at how historically the GW sourced sea level rise predictions have been quite a bit off as well.

Re:Hard to insure (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40170125)

not really. they'll just jack up the insurance prices couple of years before the water rises enough.

anyhow, by that reasoning nobody would be able to buy storm insurance in florida anyways..

and if storm flooding is usual in the areas, they'd be wise to build the buildings to withstand that anyways.

Re:Hard to insure (3, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#40170223)

well, insurance on the coast in Florida generally costs as much as the house. There is a very good reason for this.

Re:Hard to insure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170317)

In my slice of experience my observation is that those who can afford to build right on the coast can afford to build with such quality as to be resistent to pesky things like hurricanes. So I'm not sure a shortage or lack of insurance would be that big an issue.

Re:Hard to insure (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40170339)

Insurance-wise, I expect this:
I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates.

Therefore, few (if any) insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA.

Re:Hard to insure (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#40170377)

Yikes; said that last part backward. Should have been:

"Therefore, most insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA."

Re:Hard to insure (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170409)

No public insurance companies sell flood insurance anywhere. The only flood insurance provider in the US is the US Government. It's not a model that works for a for-profit insurance company, since only people who live in flood-prone areas will ever buy the insurance.


Whether this is good or bad will depend on your personal political viewpoint; I make no statement either way.

Re:Hard to insure (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#40170595)

Many insurance companies already have accepted global warming predictions. Though in this case it will depend on how they are regulated in NC.

Re:Hard to insure (2, Informative)

Spazmania (174582) | about 2 years ago | (#40170765)

Insurance companies will use whatever sources they think are reasonable, so some of this to-be-planned development may be hard to insure.

Nice theory but private insurers don't offer flood insurance in coastal areas. That's all done through the Federal National Flood Insurance Program.

http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/ [floodsmart.gov]

How anti-science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169851)

Frost piss

Re:How anti-science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169941)

jew are late

Insurance? (4, Insightful)

Lester67 (218549) | about 2 years ago | (#40169857)

How about passing a law that also states that insurance companies are forbidden to use that data as well. I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".

Re:Insurance? (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#40169901)

No, using poorly thought out limitations on what governments can do is rule of law. Using poorly thought out laws to limit what corporations can do is destroying freedom.

I honestly could not formulate that statement in a way that I feel no republicans would agree with.

Re:Insurance? (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#40170303)

It was so long ago that the Republicans had this philosophy of less government--wait that's still their current stance but only on certain things like business, oil, the environment. For things like science and gay rights, it's their purview to interfere as much as possible.

Re:Insurance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170547)

If you want the government not to interfere with science, then you must want them not to fund it.

Re:Insurance? (1)

residieu (577863) | about 2 years ago | (#40170167)

In that case, insurance companies will add a clause revoking flood coverage if water levels exceed that expected by the historical-based predictions. The developers will then cry to the government for a handout to save their investments.

Re:Insurance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170735)

Oh, the actually solution will be much more perverted I assure you. It will involve govt backed insurance plans, so tax payers will bail out the rich fucks who bought houses in the LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH future flood zone.

How do I know this? This is the current norm in Florida.

Insurance? (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#40169863)

Wouldn't this force such developments to require flood insurance that would be backed by FEMA, thus pushing the cost onto the federal government and tax payers in the rest of country?

Re:Insurance? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169929)

Nah, a government bailout in the event of a disaster? Them North Carolingians are way too robust and reliable for that.

They'd never take money, especially not from the Feds.

Re:Insurance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170073)

That's probably the whole point. Take money from the rest of the country and give it to the local businesses so they can make even more profit. After all, the residents surely won't be able to pay for all the damage done by rising water...

Re:Insurance? (1)

capedgirardeau (531367) | about 2 years ago | (#40170105)

This 1000 times.

Go right ahead and pass your law, but don't look the feds and the rest of the country to subsidies your insurance or your losses when there is a disaster of some sort.

Re:Insurance? (5, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40170345)

Remember, it isn't socialism if the money is taken to the poor and given to the rich.

It's only "bad" when it happens the other way around. I mean, surely the poor don't need the money, since they are used to having none. The rich in contrast have amply proven their unbounded need for more money, so it is only logical that the government should strive to give them as much moolah as possible (e.g. bailouts, income tax cuts, state tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, oil exploration subsidies, free land for mining within federal parks, etc.)

Re:Insurance? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170405)

Privatizing profits and socializing costs are what's made this country great, and will ensure its health in the foreseeable future. See also: scientific research, copyright enforcement, banking.

Engineering Standards (4, Insightful)

AB3A (192265) | about 2 years ago | (#40169869)

This bill seeks to do for the state what should be done through Engineering guidelines.

A sea-level rise estimate would have to take in to consideration all sorts of issues, not the least of which is potential for Tsunamis, Storm surges, and the like.

This is what happens when lawyers write technical documents...

Re:Engineering Standards (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170035)

this is what happens when you have retards working for the senate.

Re:Engineering Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170479)

While in NC they want to do intelligence testing for voters, sadly there is no equivalent testing for legislative candidates.

Re:Engineering Standards (5, Insightful)

tinkerghost (944862) | about 2 years ago | (#40170247)

They already have the engineering report. They don't like the results. It's inconvenient for the developers to have the water rise 1M, so they are trying to prohibit people from planning for it.

This way, developers can make piles of cash today and soak the public for FEMA flood insurance payouts later. Oh it won't hurt that they might get to build the replacement houses too.

Bad engineers? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40170727)

They already have the engineering report. They don't like the results. It's inconvenient for the developers to have the water rise 1M

Obviously whoever decided they should plan for the sea level to rise a meter is not an engineer.

Even the IPCC is estimating now, a maximum of around 2 feet.

But of course, no predicted massive sea level rises have taken place yet. They keep predicting doom but the sea level simply continues to creep up along the same historical trend line it has been on for decades. If forecasts cannot get the rise correct in the short term, why should planners be forced to use the even longer term wild estimates?

People who live on the coast will have to deal with potentially much higher water levels from storms anyway, so all the planning around this baseline number does is make some land off-limits that would not be otherwise, which is pointless.

Re:Engineering Standards (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40170483)

What will happen is the insurance companies won't be constrained by this legislation, and thus will slap extremely high premiums on the developments.

So it won't matter.

Now that's conservative! (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#40169887)

An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170057)

I know you're just trolling but I have to reply anyway. The law doesn't prevent looking forward, it only prohibits speculation based on concepts proven to be flawed and exaggerated.

While "the entire world is in the rear view mirror" is a catchy phrase, looking at historical data is fairly consistently a good way of predicting future events- especially when we're talking about natural events.

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40170369)

looking at historical data is fairly consistently a good way of predicting future events

Only true if conditions don't change. Which, in this case, they did.

Re:Now that's conservative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170605)

Shouldn't conservatives push insurance companies as the source on expertise on this, since they have their shareholders' money at stake?

Re:Now that's conservative! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170083)

For the global warming idiots this is looking forward. I guess sea level rises because the glaciers are melting a lot like when your ice cubes melt in your glass it over flows.

Global warming is a scam and the new religion. No different from the creationists everyone on here hates so much.

Re:Now that's conservative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170121)

Yep. Glaciers are just like ice cubes. All the ice is floating. Did you know that Greenland is actually a floating ice sheet? Because I didn't before your enlightening post informed me! Thank you very much. Mod parent informative! ~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:Now that's conservative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170229)

I guess sea level rises because the glaciers are melting a lot like when your ice cubes melt in your glass it over flows.

i c wut u did there

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170493)

You are a raging idiot. The glass doesn't have large landmasses with ice on top. The whole "ice cubes" argument completely collapses when you take two seconds to consider landlocked ice.

Re:Now that's conservative! (4, Interesting)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40170495)

There is an ice sheet nearly 3 kilometers thick sitting on Greenland, that is not floating in the water, if that one single ice sheet melted the oceans would rise by around 7 meters.

Now imagine how much worse it would be if the the Antarctic ice sheet also melted.

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170589)

In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," - University of Copenhagen

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/ [news.ku.dk]

Re:Now that's conservative! (1, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#40170153)

An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.

The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated [slashdot.org] or simply wrong.

Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example: [europa.eu]

We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade..

-- J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann

In other words, we can't accurately predict heat distribution because we don't understand the effect aerosols have on the climate, but we still predict an acceleration of sea level rise.

Re:Now that's conservative! (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#40170327)

I find it kinda funny that you think James Hansen (who do you think the J Hansen is, there?) is an authority to be believed when he finds negative forcings, but a total eugenic crackpot who is paid off by the EcoMafia when he finds positive forcings.

All models are wrong. Some are more useful than others. Which ones are useful, and why? Show your work.

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

residieu (577863) | about 2 years ago | (#40170211)

Reminds me of laws that forbid school districts from building for future growth.You can only build enough schools to match your current population.

Re:Now that's conservative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170245)

For 2pac (RIP), the entire world is in the rear view mirror.


Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

jvillain (546827) | about 2 years ago | (#40170541)

More like a bill to stop looking at BS.

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.

Who is actually telling people to shut up here? When you wheel out the old "The science is settled" argument and tell people that you can not dare to question the science any more you have admitted that you have failed. As usual there are scientists questioning the party line. Link [wattsupwiththat.com]

Re:Now that's conservative! (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40170671)

Pretty much.

Ron Paul in debate: "Perhaps we should apply the Golden Rule to foreign policy, and not harm other human beings."
NC Repubs: "booooooo!"
So much for their Christian faith.

I have a bill to propose (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40169919)

Any state senator who votes for the bill must purchase and move into a house on the beach, one which would be flooded if global warming were true. Let them put their money where their mouths are.

Re:I have a bill to propose (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#40169995)

Everyone who votes for this bill will be dead by the time it's a problem. What do they care?

Re:I have a bill to propose (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#40170543)

If that is how long it will be before there is an effect, why does ANYONE care? Our situation, economically and technologically, will be TOTALLY different by then, so making plans for eventualities that are not set in stone and that far off are pretty worthless.

If it was something that was clear and predictable, like aquifer depletion, then fine, but sea level rise from global warming? Come on. They didn't even take into effect the extraction of water from aquifers into their calculations. It is much better to use statistics from the past than half baked theories from people who keep getting it wrong.

Re:I have a bill to propose (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40170621)

Ok, so how exactly is it better to use statistics from a period of time that doesn't have the same variables than this period of time?

You put a good example of that, the water that is extracted from fossil water wells, ie water wells that were filled millions of years ago, that is now unlocked and adding to sea levels rising.

NC mulls law to forbid use of science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169921)

NC is also considering a law that forbids use of any science in any way. All decisions must be based on history or the Bible. A liberal amendment has narrowly passed allowing use of both Old and New Testaments. A similar amendment to allow use of the Apocrypha languished in committee for three days before it finally died.

Disbelieve!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169947)

We did this a lot in AD&D. DISBELIEVE!

Works for illusions. Not so good for actual dragons...

I just can't... (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#40169949)

I can't imagine how it could possibly to live as someone with such a braindead retarded lump of ignorant useless flesh atop my shoulders. And how somone hasn't such people from civilized society yet.

easy way to fix (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#40170019)

if i was that close to sea level i would design and build stuff to account for it getting wet (and maybe even staying wet for extended periods of time). Also they are saying that in 80 some years the water could maybe if we twist the numbers right be at THIS LEVEL what happens if its at THAT LEVEL (which happens to be 2X as high)?

1 meter is pretty nuts (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40170059)

Using the estimate that sea level will rise by 1 meter (about 1 yard or 3.3 feet) means most of eastern NC could not be developed. Plus it's doubtful it will actually rise that much in one century.

Re:1 meter is pretty nuts (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40170221)

Then there's the problem of which estimates should be used?

Some people [yale.edu] are saying over six meters.

How can you make public policy based on theories and projections that even those making them can't agree on?

Plus, it is easily imagined that zealous planners with political agendas could pick and choose data to shape development according to their agenda.

Re:1 meter is pretty nuts (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#40170315)

they were most likely just confused by the metric system. Especially when it forced 1 yard to equal 3.3 feet.

Re:1 meter is pretty nuts (1)

erikscott (1360245) | about 2 years ago | (#40170437)

The losses at one meter are funny, in the "that's not what I expected" sort of funny. Sure, New Bern, NC is 43 miles inland, but a big slice of downtown is only a meter above sea level at that point. Then again, Newport, NC is 6 miles inland, and yet most of it would be unaffected. You'd lose basically all of Cedar Island, including Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge, and yet Pine Knoll Shores is close enough to hear the surf crashing and a solid three meters above sea level. What ought to get the attention of oil company executives, though, is the loss of an important chunk of Camp Lejune (and all of the access roads) and the attendant ability to invade oil-rich countries. That ought to spur them into action.

Seriously, people: the ice hockey team is called The Carolina Hurricanes for a reason. Real Estate Rule of Thumb: The Coast is Toast.

Re:1 meter is pretty nuts (1)

spike hay (534165) | about 2 years ago | (#40170529)

Nah. 1 meter is around the consensus projection. It may be lower, but there is also a small chance of a much larger rise (through, e.g. collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet).

Planning for sea level rise is an example of decision making under uncertainty. If you want to prepare rationally, you don't just look at the most likely scenario or, in the case of Republicans, the scenario you want to beleive. Instead, you take the expected damages and payoffs for various mitigation strategies across all scenarios to generate the optimum expected result.

After all, you have to buy fire insurance if you have a loan on your house. You are extraordinarily unlikely to have a fire. A fire is not expected. But you still plan for the possibility, don't you?

It's a gamble either way (1, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 years ago | (#40170069)

Rewards typically always require risks. If I were an NC legislator, I'd seriously consider reaping rewards of millions or billions of dollars for my state with the understanding that if the worst fears of AGW alarmism pan out, all of that could literally go underwater in the next 100 years. But it's arguably not actually even that risky, because building and further data collection will happen at the same time, at a gradual pace. If the AGW alarmists' predictions come true (which would be a first), we should see it happening and be able to react and at least limit losses.

And there's nothing insidious and evil about trusting historical data more than the most complex empirically derived computer models, which are typically just about as valid to extrapolate as a stock market trend.

Re:It's a gamble either way (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#40170413)

In this particular case it's very convenient as well, since, if the prediction is correct, by the time the water will rise by 1m the politicians who enacted this bill will be long dead.

The news, however, is about politicians seeking to override scientists again. (yes, AGW "alarmism" is scientific consensus today; go cry to Jesus in a corner)

Re:It's a gamble either way (2)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 years ago | (#40170773)

(yes, AGW "alarmism" is scientific consensus today; go cry to Jesus in a corner)

Is the belief that AGW will increase the frequency and intensity of hurricanes also scientific consensus? Oh, I forgot, that turned out to be a testable prediction which effectively embarrassed the alarmists after they got smacked down by Mother Nature herself, who refused to follow those complex empirically derived models in which Al Gore and others placed so much faith. As a result, scientific consensus leans _against_ that particular alarmist position. Quite ironic, too, since it was basically the basis of the cover art for Al Gore's movie.

Based on the trends of both the scientific community and wider society toward very healthy skepticism toward AGW alarmism, I am more likely to be laughing at this point than "crying in a corner". :D

They did not do enough! (3, Funny)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#40170097)

That decree should obviously came toghether with another one forbiding the sea to rise faster than the hystorical average. By not passing that second decree, the legislators are letting people endanger their buildings.

New Orleans Anyone? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#40170115)

If we can let the morons in New Orleans rebuild (which is already -8ft, save for the French Quarter) then we can surely let those who are still positive to build.

On top of that NASA estimates "Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, " That's an error margin of 1,000% which in anyone's book is a WAG (wild-assed guess). I think the historical record is much less alarmist and is based on facts not guesses .

The governement has a duty to the people to operate on facts, not superstition, religion, or WAGs.

Barrier Islands (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#40170129)

There have been people that have wanted to ban development on barrier islands for many years.

It sounds like the R's are passing this bill to prevent the Ds from back dooring this policy.

Personally I think if someone lives somewhere that the house is destroyed every 30 years or so their insurance payment is equal to their 30 year mortgage payment. This should be true on barrier islands and in Santa Barbara canyons. Then it's just an informed decision.

Venice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170139)

One meter isn't really that much. How about raising the houses? They even do that in fast-moving flood areas in California. The Russian River area comes to mind. I've seen cabins raised on concrete one story. Earthquakes and floods, and they are dealing with it. Of course that's existing development with existing permits. They probably can't build anything new there; but that's beside the point. Why do they have to choke off all development? Why not simply require the houses to be on raised foundations?

Re:Venice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170555)

They have to choke off development to live up to the requirements of Agenda 21. George H. Bush signed it but the congress wouldn't ratify it so it's being implemented in bits and pieces and by executive orders. One of the reasons the congress wouldn't ratify it was that about half of the continental United States would have to be depopulated. Not turned into parks that people could enter and enjoy even temporarily but completely depopulated and never have another human set foot there again. Initiatives that limit development, relocate people to other areas are just little pieces of this policy being implemented in ways that keep people from realizing the big picture.

There's also a 40 billion dollar plan to depopulate the cost in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hey, it worked for Hy-Brasil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170231)

When the sea level rises further, NC can just post signs saying "This is not happening".

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170407)

This should remove all doubt (for anybody that had any) that Republicans are solidly anti-science. It doesn't get much more blatant that using the power of the state to outlaw the consideration of scientific data that conflicts with their ideology.

Bad idea (5, Insightful)

skyraker (1977528) | about 2 years ago | (#40170419)

Remember Fukishima? Their problem was that they didn't go back far enough with their historical data when they designed their tsunami wall. Now, in what amounts to the same thinking, people do not want to overstate any possibility of water levels going too high for the sake of the almighty dollar. So when the ocean levels rise, or a 'once-in-a-lifetime' hurricane swells the sea up high enough, will those who support these lower levels be responsible for the cost?

Floating a bill? (1)

dtmos (447842) | about 2 years ago | (#40170451)

Republicans in North Carolina are floating a bill that. . .

The question is, at which sea level will that bill be floating -- the developers' sea level or the scientists' sea level?

Or will it have been sunk?

State Governments and Insurance Regulation (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about 2 years ago | (#40170477)

If people can push the pause button on their hissy-fit tape loops for a few minutes and think:

State governments regulate insurance companies so there is no good reason they shouldn't prefer a requirement that builders take out insurance policies over central planning of what should or should not be allowed. Let the insurance companies pay for relocating the buildings if they charge premiums that are too low, or suffer the loss of business if the premiums they charge are too high. The only thing of interest to the State government would then be whether there was a reasonable chance of fraud going on with the insurance companies intending on closing up shop if their bets go sour.

Re:State Governments and Insurance Regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170669)

The only problem with that idea is that no private, state supervised company offers flood insurance. It's such a bad deal that only the Federal government is dumb enough to do that.

It's stupid, but more complicated than that... (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#40170487)

The problem with politics and science is that one is supposed to cope with reality, the other is supposed to describe reality as it exists now.

The prediction of 1m rise is not going to happen. It isn't. Either politicians are going to look at that number and do something about it, and keep it from getting that bad. Or they're going to ignore it, and 1m is going to a significant under prediction. And that's far bigger than any state government.

Politicians have to guess what *is* going to happen, that's a guess, not a scientific prediction. Because who knows what the world economy is going to do, and what policies are going to be adopted about, or inspite of global warming, especially over the next 88 years.

Scientists can, and do make predictions, which are based on a series of assumptions about what people will or won't do. But the point of making the predictions is to change what people will, or won't do, which makes the assumptions wrong and requires new predictions. That's perfectly reasonable, but where you choose to pull the guess of what will actually happen as opposed to what will happen if people do nothing is basically arbitrary.

If this was a well thought out discussion from the german state of hannover saying that they believe governments will take action to prevent sea level rise beyond 50cm, and that forms the basis of their projections that would be about as good a guess as 15.6 inches (40cm) as north carolina comes up with. Guessing 100 years in the future is hard. Moreso when you don't want to believe in the present reality sure, but we have to be realistic in recognizing that those scientific predictions are for much different levels of government than a single US state.

It is well known in NC scientific circles (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#40170503)

It is well known in North Carolina scientific circles that words can hold back the ocean. The proof is right there in the Bible when Moses held back the red sea with just a few words to God. Obviously the population will be able to merely say a prayer hold back sea. Global warming is a problem created by man but it can quickly and easily be cured by God, all you have to do is ask. NC alchemists have already succeeded in turning slave labor into gold, sea level will be a snap!

Just don't make taxpayers cover it ... (3, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about 2 years ago | (#40170591)

I always consider the geography when looking for a house. River valley, probably a flood plain. Dense bush nearby, forest fire risk. Steep slopes, too prone to landslides. Silt bed in an earthquake zone, well, let's just say that I want a chance of survival. The thing is, after taking out the crazy risks, there are still plenty of places to live.

Problem is, homeowners want something scenic. Developers want something cheap to build upon. City planners are more concerned about tax revenues. If they want to accept the risks, fine. It's their homes and their lives.

Just don't make the wiser folks pay for it when the disasters ultimately strike.

My projections based on historical rise (1)

linear a (584575) | about 2 years ago | (#40170593)

My projections based on historical sea level rise in NC over the last 4 hours (3 feet) mean that we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble in a year or so.

I remember a story (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40170611)

About King Canute (Not sure where he was King of, probably some Scandinavian country.)
Anyway he passed a royal decree forbidding the tide to rise. It didn't work out so well.

Slashdot Headline on 5/31/2042 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170625)

NC Disappears Underwater as Sea Levels Rise.

Slashdot Comment: Check out this article from 30 years ago! It predicted this!

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170677)

12000 years ago sea levels were 100 feet lower your safe.....
on other hand at around 130000 years back the levels were 300 feet higher GEE which historical do i panic people to make me money....

North Carolinian here.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170755)

This has nothing to do with global warming belief or disbelief. As if you didn't figure it out already, it's all about the benjamins.

Fact is, the state of NC subsidizes the Outer Banx quite a bit, be it through constant repair of NC 12 (the main drag up the island chain) or encouraging property development and sales on what amounts to a giant glorified sandbar.

Bear in mind that tourism and agriculture are the only large industries in NC east of the I-95 corridor. If that portion of the state ever seceded, that new state would be the poorest in the nation per capita. The solons in Raleigh, regardless of party, will protect their tax base by whatever means, even if it requires sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la" during the legislative session. Frankly, if you told me that the Army Corps of Engineers were going to build Dutch-style dikes out there, I wouldn't be surprised.

So, if you do want to buy a house out on the Banx, you'd be in great shape, since the taxpayers will help, whether they like it or not, if your investment gets washed away. (Never mind the fact that an undeveloped barrier and some wetlands would mitigate hurricane damage. What are you, some kind of socialist?)

Historic data only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170763)

Okay, we'll use historic CO2 and climate data for prediction...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account