‘Anti-intellectualism’ and retired realtor blamed for defeat of North Carolina sea-level rise bill

A group of North Carolina businesses “chose to embrace run-of-the-mill anti-global-warming arguments and cloaked itself with dubious ‘experts’ whose scientific views are at the outermost fringes of climate science. They started a war and won the first battle.” Congrats to John Droz.

Read more at Earth Magazine.

9 thoughts on “‘Anti-intellectualism’ and retired realtor blamed for defeat of North Carolina sea-level rise bill”

  1. Full disclosure – As a native North Carolinian, I have corresponded with John Droz Jr for over several years while supporting his untiring work in bringing scientific fact/method and common sense to the CAGW debate.

    In the interest of truth (something extremely lacking in the Earth article link), it should be noted that John Droz Jr is not only a retired realtor, John is also a physicist and has been an environmental activist for over 25 years.
    John has undergraduate degrees in physics and math from Boston College as well as a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University.
    John’s focus is on getting citizens informed (encouraging critical thinking), and then insisting that their government representatives use scientific methodology regarding energy decisions.

    More on John here – http://www.energyblogs.com/WiseEnergyDecisions/bio.cfm

    Other resources offered by John – http://www.windpowerfacts.info/

    Following John’s lead and utilizing his resources linked above, perhaps individuals in other states can accomplish the same goals John has accomplished here in North Carolina.

  2. Having lived in North Carolina all my life I’ve never observed any obvious sea level rise since the early 1970’s when the family made the annual beach pilgrammage. What I have witnessed is beach erosion from the frequent storms and hurricanes that batter our coast. On a practical matter how would one distinguish sea level rise from beach soil erosion?

  3. It’s not just False Analogy. It’s scientific fraud to equate evolution with the junk science of manmade global warming (aka, climate change) and sea level rise based on unscientific, fatally flawed, designed to warm, computer models.

  4. Anti-intellectualism is a reaction against what is commonly derided as navel-gazing. Overreliance on hypothesis and the theoretical science without implementation or application. Like the comic book about the physics geek who becomes the perfect baseball player with minimal practice, it makes for a good story, but it is insulting both to those who actually work with physics and athletes.

    In this case, the evidence is clear that the sea level models are worthless, and the proposal is to use only real data when making policies that can condemn people’s homes.

  5. “…evolution and global warming. Neither of these theories is controversial within the scientific community. ”

    “Now we can add sea-level rise to the growing list of ‘controversial’ topics.”

    Catastrophic global warming and sea-level rise are on a very tenuous scientific footing compared to evolution. The writer is committing the logical error of False Analogy.

  6. If “intellectualism” involves touting the discovery of the Higgs boson as a great intellectual achievement without a single look at the paper announcing it, then “anti-intellectualism” must be endorsed and supported by all good people as a matter of hygiene. It is strange that the Higgs affair didn’t get hit on JunkScience to the extent it was begging for.

    I wondered for a while how something of no apparent use to policymakers could get so much funding from them. Now I can see: all junk science is useful to policymakers. If they can’t scare people with it, they hope it will dazzle them. So the current recipe is: mention NASA’s credibility, no matter how far-fetched, dazzle them with inscrutable but overwhelmingly expensive junk from CERN, and while they are (supposedly) still dazzled, slip in the same old crap that didn’t work yesterday.

  7. The “anti-science” projection seems closer to the observed 3 mm/year than the projected 11 mm/yr. It’s interesting that the projection is exponential, barring observations to assess the validity of the claim until sometime in the future. Where might all that water be coming from?
    I also noticed they used “climate change” meaning AGW, not the fact that the climate is not static. Oh, well, I plan to be on the NC coast for several days to assess the affect of sea level rise on various aquatic fauna. I predict sea level rise of 4-5 feet about every 12 hours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.