What jumps out at me when reading articles on the debate over the definition of ‘rising sea levels’ in North Carolina and Virginia is how people are so worried about being mocked on ‘The Colbert Report.’ I personally could care less what Stephen Colbert thinks. (BTW–is the Virginian Pilot article a straight news story or an opinion piece? At times I couldn’t tell.)
I have to agree with Sen. David Rouzer —sponsor of the bill that passed yesterday –when he says that predicting climate change eight decades out — and crafting legislation based on that predicted change—- is folly. Think about previous legislation that crafted eight decades out —Social Security comes to mind —- and we see how that’s working out.
Just so happens the evil John Locke Foundation has weighed in on climate change. Joel Schwartz’s report addressed rising sea levels:
Climate activists in North Carolina have been claiming that greenhouse warming will flood the Outer Banks and wipe out the state’s coastal areas. But tide gauge data for North Carolina show little sea level rise during the past few decades.
Wilmington has a long-running series covering the years 1936-2005. Average sea level has risen only about 5 or 6 inches during this 70-year period. Furthermore, for the last 5 years, average sea level has actually dropped a few inches below peak levels achieved during the 1990s is now about the same as peal levels during the 1940s and 1970s.
I always make the argument that our environment has never been cleaner due to –yes I’m actually saying this —- the many regulations that have been put in place over the last 40 years. That climate activists continue to put forth doomsday scenarios is bascially an admission that those regulations haven’t worked. So what’s the point of having them?
........As you post your comment, please conform to Piedmont Publius's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
13
2012 At 12:34 pm, Roch Smith Said:
I believe the phrase you were looking for is “I could not care less.” If you could care less, that means you care.
And what in the world is the point you are trying to make? That legislation with long term implications is folly? That’s pretty far out, man. I think what you probably mean is that legislation with which you disagree is objectionable, by any excuse you can concoct. Otherwise, if your argument holds, we can say the Constitution was folly for, you know, looking so far ahead.