Talk Elections

http://news.yahoo.com/law-north-carolina-bans-latest-scientific-predictions-sea-165416121--abc-news-topstories.html (http://news.yahoo.com/law-north-carolina-bans-latest-scientific-predictions-sea-165416121--abc-news-topstories.html)

The law was drafted in response to an estimate by the state's Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century, prompting fears of costlier home insurance and accusations of anti-development alarmism among residents and developers in the state's coastal Outer Banks region.

Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue had until Thursday to act on the bill known as House Bill 819, but she decided to let it become law by doing nothing.

The bill's passage in June triggered nationwide scorn by those who argued that the state was deliberately blinding itself to the effects of climate change. In a segment on the "Colbert Report," comedian Stephen Colbert mocked North Carolina lawmakers' efforts as an attempt to outlaw science.

"If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved," he joked.

I hope those who voted for or supported the bill they get flooded. But I'm sure they'd blame that on the gays.

Some "Democrat" Perdue is for declining to veto this. I imagine that rising sea levels won't be kind to the Outer Banks.

Why let facts get in the way of profit?

Oh, God. Oh, my f[inks]ing God.

First Texas, now this?

What's going to get real annoying is when in 30-40 years the folks in the low areas begin asking for federal assistance once their homes get swallowed up by the sea with greater frequency each year.

I wish the US wasn't such a reactionary society, it really sucks for issues like climate change.

Don't worry folks. Inks told me that Republicans aren't anti-science at all, that's just liberal crap. 

It's what Jebus wants.

I never said no Republicans were.

And to be fair, the law doesn't ban the predictions from being made.  It bans those predictions from being used to guide state policies anytime in the next 4 years, having the state rely on  climatological data while the CRC finishes their report.

The story also uses an old version of the bill, while the end bill was more moderate.

The media in this state have a habit of using the old texts that have since been amended. WRAL is still using the original Rucho-Lewis map that was canned after Butterfield's criticisms were issued.

Good ole' Bev strikes again. :P

Good to know. Maybe in the next election they should use this slogan: "Republicans: not as bad as the Inquisition".

This is nothing close to the Inquisition.

But we know to expect Republicans, nobody expects the Inquisition.

My state of California should do this. I say that they should redefine Earthquakes as "Jesus hugs". And then they can get rid of all that job killing regulation that deny job creators the freedom to chose any building materials they want. 

Nobody's redefining anything.

Well I suppose they're redefining the basis for policy-making - elminating the use of science as a part of this process is an interesting step.

while a parody the analogy is apt.

Science shows that California is more in danger of experiencing earthquakes than Iowa, and science indicates that more Earthquakes will come based on analyzing historical trends. Therefore California's government has put in many regulations and limits on where and how things are constructed in the state. These regulations increase costs and decrease certain economic opportunities.  

NC is essentially doing the opposite. The USGS and entire world of science is telling NC that they are susceptible to future sea level rising. This finding would therefore therefore force the state to take actions which would cost money and/or opportunity. Instead of dealing with the problem they are choosing to ignore it (or redefine it as not a problem)

Global warming denial has such a great allure because it is the easier thing to do. If we say it isn't happening then we dont have to deal with it.  

1. From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong here), but this doesn't actual change the basis for policy-making.  The status quo seems to already be to use climatoligical data.  The bill seems more of a preemptive step.

2. How is using climatological data eliminating the use of science?  Climatology is science...

Perhaps they've chosen certain aspects of science with which they agree and disallowed other aspects with which they disagree politically.

Hey, the Bishop of Geneva once exorcised a glacier and the Little Ice Age ended, eventually.  ;)

http://geowords.com/histbookpdf/b03.pdf

That may be the case with some people (although that'd mean they wouldn't even continue the study), but that's not what you said.  You said they were "eliminating the use of science" as part of the state's process.  And that's 100% false.

()

Dear Jebus, what has happened to North Carolina??

I was so proud of them in 2008 when they voted for Obama and put in Kay Hagan. Since then it seems like the state has experienced a shocking veer to the right.

1) Bev Purdue has been a complete failure as a governor and has deeply disappointed democrats who voted for. Hey Bev! Last time I checked you're still governor for a few more months, so why not veto this turd of a bill? It's not like you have to worry about reelection.

2) GOP wins control of the legislature in I don't know how many years

3) North Carolinians vote their fears and overwhelmingly approve amendment one, single handedly denying basic rights to same sex couples as well as unmarried couples

4) That dumbass preacher says that gays should be corralled so they can no longer taint the rest of us.

5) and now this

Get it together tarheels

 

(I'm posting in this decade-old topic for reasons that should be obvious.)

Two North Carolina beach houses collapse into Atlantic Ocean as seen in video (https://news.yahoo.com/two-north-carolina-beach-houses-141304811.html)

Actions have consequences. Republicans are more interested in lining their pockets and then making excuses for why they didn't act after the fact. Blood on their hands... this is only the beginning.

Ridiculous.  We must follow the science on climate change. Even if it is news people do not want to hear.

So much freedom.

I agree but I'm going to be fair and blame Perdue for this too. This law was insane (literally like the phrase "Don't look up" for the eponymous movie), but blood is also on the hands of Bev Perdue for not vetoing this (though in all fairness, it's not just acknowleding facts - it's then doing something about it, which I doubt the NC Legislature would've done anyway). This is absolutely disgusting - deliberately closing your eyes to science and logic for $$$ - but there's no reason to give Perdue a free pass on this, whatsoever. She could've vetoed it and she did not.

But yeah this is sickening and NC's 2012 law (wasn't aware of it till now) was massive, massive HP. If only they'd held off until say 2017 - massive FF and BASED left-winger Roy Cooper would have most certainly vetoed this nonsense, because he's not spineless like Perdue.

Yeah, fair.
Dems certainly have blood on their hands too... it's just less blood in most cases.

Link is broken.

The thread is more than 9.5 years old. It's understandable.

Ah, remember when Stephen Colbert was worth watching? Good old days...

Here are some relevant working links:

New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise (https://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782)(2012), and
North Carolina Literally Passed Laws Against Science on Sea-Level Rises (https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-t-outlaw-hurricanes-how-north-carolina-turned-its-back-climate-change-bill-hb-819-nc-20-florence)(2018)

Democrats (even in 2012) are usually so much more sensible and rational about the environment, and that's what makes Perdue letting this happen (even in 2012) so perplexing and disappointing to me.

Why are Republicans so terrified of facts?

What a ludicrous law.
Hopefully the next Dem trifecta can repeal this law.