North Carolina Outlaws Science, Measurement, and Rising Water

Quintin_Stone wrote:
You and SPP are acting like I said lobbyists are just harmless cuddly bunnies and politicians are all immaculate saints.

Really don't think I said anything of the sort--I've simply been adamant that this is worth discussing. If I felt otherwise, I'd leave.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Now who's being weirdly defensive? I never once said people couldn't discuss it. Talk it about it until you're blue in the face, just for f*ck's sake, don't pretend it's something that it's not. I'm just sick to death of people going on their social justice bandwagon crusades before they even have a clue what their outrage is about.

You and SPP are acting like I said lobbyists are just harmless cuddly bunnies and politicians are all immaculate saints. Hell no! Would this circulated draft pass if it were to be introduced? It's certainly possible, I really couldn't tell you one way or the other.

Bloo in the face, actually.

And, no, I'm not acting like that at all. But I am acting like 'nonstory' means 'not worth discussing, why are you discussing it', which seems like a perfectly reasonable way to read it. Anywho, once I'm done posting from my phone in the middle of nowhere, I have a couple more links to share aboot this.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Bloo in the face, actually.

I posit this is what killed the thread.

Seth wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Bloo in the face, actually.

I posit this is what killed the thread.

it was a mercy killing.

IMAGE(http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.11285196.3352/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)

Unless it's the ocean. The ocean doesn't rise, again or otherwise.

Or the south.

Yeah I realized at some point that the thread had run its course and decided not to make it an echo chamber of me posting stuff to myself.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Or the south.

Which is neat. I mean, if we had to put as much effort into keeping the South down as the South puts in for us, we wouldn't be able to prop up the Southern poor as much as we do.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Yeah I realized at some point that the thread had run its course and decided not to make it an echo chamber of me posting stuff to myself.

Well, I'd have listened, but then obviously the shouting down would have started. Too bad.

Tanglebones wrote:
IMAGE(http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.11285196.3352/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)

is that from a Viagra ad?

How very passive-aggressive of you. I'm not going to apologize for asking you to back up your made-up assertions of fact.

The only thing I accused you of, Quentin, is of not being the arbiter of what's worth talking about. Oh, and of being smart. Doesn't matter, you won, be graceful about it.

Gravey wrote:
And I thought NC was supposed to be the normal Carolina (relatively—everyone in the US is crazy to us, but if "South" is involved, we assume they're even crazier.)

Nothing is normal south of the Mason-Dixon.

Just don't condemn all of us just because we live here.

To the pit, citizen of a stupid place!

*cough* I think maybe that already counts as being in the pit.

You can't stop stupid.... I am becoming more and more ashamed that I live in this state....

The legislation was endorsed by a unanimous voice vote Thursday in the Senate Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. The full Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

The measure was crafted by Republican legislators in a rewrite of a bill – originally on a minor, unrelated coastal issue – that the House approved last year. If the Senate approves it, it will return to the House for concurrence.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/08/3300033/senate-committee-likes-the-slow.html

I searched the Senate Actions page for bills with activity yesterday but couldn't find anything like it listed.
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lasta...

A search for "Coastal Resources Commission" couldn't find any match for a bill with the same name as the original circulated proposal. Looking through the text of some of the most likely ones didn't turn up anything either.
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillS...

So I haven't been able to find out how much the bill differs from the original proposal, if at all.

A bit late, but this article has a link to the new bill. It still wants to use a linear extrapolation to figure out the rate of rise, but it allows for consideration of accelerated rates provided "such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends." There's still wiggle room for them to deny accelerated rates depending on what they consider "historic trends" so they could continue to develop oceanfront property that will be underwater by the end of the century.

Stengah wrote:
A bit late, but this article has a link to the new bill. It still wants to use a linear extrapolation to figure out the rate of rise, but it allows for consideration of accelerated rates provided "such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends." There's still wiggle room for them to deny accelerated rates depending on what they consider "historic trends" so they could continue to develop oceanfront property that will be underwater by the end of the century.

Yeah, that sounds to me like they threw the words 'statistically significant' and 'peer-reviewed' in there to make it sound like they are interested in basing their policy on sound science ... while giving themselves an easy out for ignoring any data they dislike.

Hmm, I'm getting a SQL error. Worth noting though that that site is the lobbying group right in the middle of all this.

Stengah wrote:
A bit late, but this article has a link to the new bill. It still wants to use a linear extrapolation to figure out the rate of rise, but it allows for consideration of accelerated rates provided "such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends." There's still wiggle room for them to deny accelerated rates depending on what they consider "historic trends" so they could continue to develop oceanfront property that will be underwater by the end of the century.

I'm really amused by this quote:

Sen. David Rouzer wrote:

"Just because there is a group of folks that project the sea-level rise does not mean the sea will rise. There was consensus years and years and years ago that the earth was flat; turned out to be round."

Someone should inform the good Senator that the myth that there was a widespread view held by the 'scientists' of the day that the world was flat has been roundly busted.

absurddoctor wrote:
Sen. David Rouzer wrote:

"Just because there is a group of folks that project the sea-level rise does not mean the sea will rise. There was consensus years and years and years ago that the earth was flat; turned out to be round."

Someone should inform the good Senator that the myth that there was a widespread view held by the 'scientists' of the day that the world was flat has been roundly busted.

Sen. Rouzer would just flatly deny that.