“Sea-level rise too risky for N. C. to ignore”—a view of the opinion editor of the Wilmington StarNews. (Link below)
In case readers hadn’t noticed, our astute Editorial Board reminds us that during Hurricane Irma water was “bubbling up from storm drains at high tide” in sea-level Miami Beach. With 145 mph winds pushing water into the city, does that surprise anyone?
In a short two-paragraph leap they tell us that the new federal EPA Chief Scott Pruitt feels that to debate cause and effect of the storm rather than focus on helping people is misplaced.
He’s right, of course. Emergencies are no time for political propaganda.
In fact, the editorial informs us, Mr. Pruitt has gone so far as to ban the word climate change in EPA grant applications—an excellent idea because the EPA is supposed to be a science-based agency not a misguiding arm of government.
Under the Obama administration EPA decided carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and welfare; they called an “Endangerment Finding”—it’s actually a vital, necessary gas that greatly benefits our lives. Without it there would be no plants or other higher life forms on earth.
This “Finding” happened less than 90 days into Obama’s first term—a gift to radical environmental supporters. The Endangerment Finding is “based on flawed climate models that don’t accurately reflect Earth’s response to carbon dioxide,” according to Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
Another editorial leap back to North Carolina: “(A) 2012 study by a scientific advisory council to the Coastal Resources Commission urged coastal communities to plan for a 39-inch rise in sea levels by 2100.” This was a ridiculous assessment because scientific measurements of sea-level rises barely reach a few millimeters in decades.
Then, the editorial launches into the climate change canard, “Predictions aren’t exact (yes, predictions are guesses, but 39-inches seems quite precise to me), but the overwhelming consensus among scientists (there is no such thing as “consensus” in science) is that our activities are warming seas and melting ice caps”—where is the proof of that? Models do not compel the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Finally, the editorial admits, “We don’t have to be alarmist about sea-level rise.”
Oh, yes we do or be threatened by U. S. Democrat senators that we’ll be brought up in their tribunal on charges of being climate “deniers” under organized crime laws. (Link below)
Last year nine Democrat senators sent a threatening letter to the John Locke foundation and 47 other public policy think tanks. They accused the organizations of forming a “web of denial” about manmade climate change.
This has become more like religion than science—at best, pseudoscience.
When can we stop refuting bizarre unfounded claims of catastrophic climate based on our normal activities on Earth? There is no scientific basis for it.