Rouzer's talking points—that the science of climate change and sea level rise is debatable—mirrored those not only of NC-20, but also of the rhetoric spouted by right-wing, anti-regulation, climate-change deniers. Not coincidentally, many of these organizations, including the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have ties to the fossil fuel industry.
And for those who deny the deniers are involved in our local denial movement, here's your connection:
Submitted by GrayNewman on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:14am
I was down in Beaufort last month at the Duke University Maritime Lab and the former director said that all their models are pointing to at least a 3' rise in sea level over the next century and that many coastal communities will be under water by 2100. Well, there are some in the NC Legislature who disagree with science.
This quote by Bill Chameides, current dean of the Duke U. Nichols School of the Environment pretty much sums it up:
Some in the state legislature may be feeling a good deal of self-satisfaction for concocting this little gambit, perhaps even high fiving each other and chanting things like “we don’t need no stinking climate scientists.”
I'm not often surprised by the anti-science bias of today's Tea Party Republicans in Raleigh, but I have to admit that this news caught even my cynical self off guard.
The proposed bill would limit forecasts for future sea-level rise to what the ocean along the N.C. coast did last century. Using that standard, the state would plan for rise of about 12 inches by 2100. Determining the rate would fall to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. Language in the bill says the rates “shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900” and that "(R)ates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.”
In the minds of most experts, the chief worry is not that the carbon in the permafrost will break down quickly — typical estimates say that will take more than a century, perhaps several — but that once the decomposition starts, it will be impossible to stop.
The only problem with this paragraph is the use of future tense. The decomposition has already started, and from everything I've been able to read, it is already impossible to stop. Thank you free market!
Submitted by scharrison on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:34am
Via e-mail from one of the organizers:
In the wake of the debt-ceiling debacle of the last few weeks, working people
and the poor are facing what could be a decade of increased hardship. Members of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance are gathering to redouble
their efforts to defend the public sector, and to push back against the conservative myths of scarcity and austerity.
These folks were booted out of the Cancun climate conference for protesting the lack of interest in protecting indigenous peoples and the poor, who will be the first and most adversely affected victims of global climate change. So it should be somewhat spicy. For those who are unsure of the benefits of direct action, here are some notes from one of the founders of GGJ on educating the masses:
Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:41am
On a recent Diane Rehm Show focused on the impacts of approaching Climate Change, the host was driven to ask "Why?" Why does a certain subset of individuals (and scientists) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that atmospheric carbon levels have surpassed the danger point and are affecting climate on a global scale?
The answer to that question doesn't lie in the scientific data, it's in our heads. Both psychological and sociological triggers come into play, and we'll take a look at each.
BlueNC is a labor of love. Views expressed by any particular community member are simply that: the views of that particular member. If you have questions or concerns about the content you see here, please contact us.