Just watched the trailer for Shored Up. Could not find your five falsehoods. The claim that sea levels are rising faster today than in the past is supported by researchers who report that before 1993 the average rate of sea level rise was 1.7 mm per year, but since 1993 that rate has averaged 3.2 mm per year. Hard to argue with data like that.
The theatrical trailer of "Shored Up" is just 2.5 minutes long, but I counted five (5) blatant falsehoods, plus a couple of more subtle deceptions. I doubt that the whole film keeps up with that impressive rate of one lie every 30 seconds, but it certainly is not by any stretch of the imagination "objective and well-rounded."
He has the "it" factor; charisma, charm, personality; charitable efforts; add that to dancing, singing and acting, and his down to earth personality; he is the whole package and his fans, which I am one of, love him. We have no interest in criticizing him as we just enjoy him as a person. You are wasting your time picking him apart because you lose his sole in the process. Why don't you just sit back and enjoy the show??
Any suggestions on how to find out about screenings like the one at NCSU of Chasing Ice, or future screenings of Shored Up if we are fortunate enough that they happen here? I think there are better venues at NCMNS for showing a movie than their Thursday night Science Cafe. The Daily Planet is a cafe with several big display screens (but not huge) spread high up around the seating area, which has room for maybe 150 if you include the bar. The museum has a wonderful auditorium in their main building that would be a great place to show Shored Up and Chasing Ice. As to the museum's reluctance to host such showings, it sure does appear to be out of fear of political retribution, a very sad state of affairs in a democratic country.
Nate, We did not have access to the film last week, so we quoted the NC Coastal Federation and others who had seen it for our description. The film makers have contacted us, and they are working on getting us a screener before our Tuesday print deadline so that we can update this story.
As to the size of the room, I spoke to someone at the museum this weekend who said that for previous popular events (E.O.Wilson, for example), people were put in overflow areas and the presentation was Livestreamed. So apparently it is possible to accommodate large crowds for the Science Cafés.
Oh my gosh people are ridiculous. I know all of the guys who work at Ultimate Comics and they are wonderful, loving people. All of this negative press only serves to hurt the comic community, and furthermore it's pointless. These guys run a fantastic convention and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.
I previewed the film in entirety on November 15th and can say with full certainty that Shored Up is objective and well-rounded. This article is flatly uninformed regarding the content of the film. Climate science and sea level rise isn't the subject of the film -- it's the underlying antagonist, but the story is about social, economic and local impacts to barrier islands from beach erosion and hurricanes. SLR is attributed to climate change, but the point of the film is about what is happening right now.
Shored Up provides a full range of perspectives and in fact, only discusses climate change and sea level peripherally. The theme of the film is impact from powerful hurricanes. Topics include beach nourishment, construction of groins, protection of high value vs. middle class homes, the struggle between local economies and localized vulnerabilities, insurance and the new National Flood Insurance Program law.
The film also provides interviews with individuals on several sides of this complex issue including:
...(a) The director of NC-20
...(b) Mayors of coastal communities
...(c) Beach nourishment experts from the Army Corps of Engineers
...(d) Business owners in coastal communities
...(d) Victims of Hurricane Sandy primarily in New York and New Jersey.
...(e) Climate scientists and coastal experts in North Carolina and New York
I suspect the Natural History Museum is concerned that it may suffer budget cuts if it shows this film. Perhaps the Science Cafe may not be the appropriate place, but Musuem Director Koster's comments appear to indicate he has either not seen the film or perhaps is concerned about the politics of coastal development and potential retribution from the Assembly.
FYI on Chasing Ice: This film was recently screened at NC State. While very beautiful it's also can be described as a simple narrative about a photographer's effort to document retreating glaciers. Wonderful but limited. Shored Up is superior in that it addresses the social, economic and political dynamics resulting from increasing storm damage to barrier islands.
Regarding the original story about the documentary film, having been to many Science Cafe presentations and discussions at the museum's Daily Planet cafe over the past year, it is too small a venue for showing a movie, and not an appropriate venue for a movie at all. There was a Science Cafe presentation and discussion about the sea level rise issue at the time the legislature was considering the bill, and Stan Riggs gave an excellent in-person summary of the state of the science of sea level rise and answered audience questions. That is the strength of the Science Cafe format, in-person presentations by qualified scientists that address the science and allow for audience participation. A documentary film could be shown on their large television screens, but it would be a much-less-than-ideal venue for such a viewing. I know nothing about the film in question, but will admit that issue advocacy may not be the most fruitful kind of presentation for a science museum. That said, I'd sorely like to see someone air the documentary "Chasing Ice" in Raleigh. It was shown last week in Durham and I missed it. I believe it would fall more in the category of science than of issue advocacy.
I read said bill. Interesting that it stipulates that that the CRC "...shall not define rates of sea level rise for regulatory purposes until July 1, 2016." So coastal development gets to go to town for another three years without giving any consideration to likely future rises in sea level that could threaten new or even existing development? Is that true?
Second, the statement in the bill, "...compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models" in effect implies that CO2 increases and warming oceans either do not exist or of course will have no effect on sea level in the future. Historical calculations alone, by definition, ignore future changes to past conditions. Increasing atmospheric CO2 and warming oceans (evidence for both of which is unequivocal), strongly suggest that the future will not be like the past, and sea level rise predictions based solely on historical calculations would hardly be considered as sound science by any trained scientist.
Most of the energy imbalance created by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is being absorbed by the oceans. As a result they are warming and expanding in volume. As surface waters and the atmosphere continue to warm, it is only reasonable to expect that more and more currently frozen water resting on land surfaces (think Greenland and Antarctica) will melt, contributing even more to the ocean's total volume. As that volume increases, sea levels will rise inevitably. The local exceptions will be in places where the land surface is rising as fast as or faster than sea level due to other geological forces at work (eg., rebound near areas where ice melt reduces the mass of water holding a land surface down, not a particularly likely circumstance in NC, but not out of the question).
It's pretty clear that the NC legislature and NC-20 were most interested in protecting development interests in coastal counties and skeptical of the work of climate scientists that could threaten the pace of such development. Very much like what was done to the Jordan Lake Rules, the legislature put off any considerations that might slow development due to environmental considerations. Heaven forbid we consider long-term consequences that might threaten short-term gains. The problem with that idealogy is that the long-term consequences might far outweigh the short-term gains, but we'll never know if we don't ask reasonable people (i.e., trained scientists) to examine the issue objectively. That is not what the legislature did this past session when they delayed the consideration of reasonable scientific judgement arrived at after extensive and objective research.
It's been 20 years since WXYC was a "college rock" station.
The buyer signed a contract whose strictest standard states that he will keep the Hofman Forest as a legacy forest, and use it for forestry and AGRICULTURE purposes. Of course we all know that means nothing; he does not say it will be a WORKING FOREST with a conservation easement, which NC State could have required by putting in the DEED, not the contract.
The contract lasts only for one buyer, who can roll it over tomorrow, and legacy is only a connotation, not a stipulation. It is interesting that the contract and NCSU spinners use LEGACY, not working forest, which what the rest of the world uses for a permanently managed and legally protected forest.
My 1970 legacy Webster's dictionary defines legacy as: "1: a gift by will esp. of money or other personal property: BEQUEST: 2; something received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past."
So, the buyer is getting a legacy - a gift of property (at a bargain price); given to him in contrary to the wishes of those who toiled in the past. And of course he does not promise to keep it in a working forest.
In fact I have heard from another very informed source that the buyer has a pending agreement with the DoD that will let him convert any or all of the land to crops, except the 9000 acres for outright development rights, which is not covered at all.
Also, NCSU says this is the first time they have heard of or seen these development plans; the BUYER'S representative says they are plans and renderings that they received from NC State, which they developed 4 years ago. Who is lying here? NCSU or the buyer? It has to be one or the other.
Thank goodness these schemers do not and cannot coordinate all their phony PR. They have indeed spun a wicked web, which becomes even more tangled every day.
Meanwhile, NCSU's legacy will be one of greed, deceit, hypocrisy, betrayal, infamy, and ignominy.
Come on, NCSU leaders. Stop this sale.
Leslie Gura, here are the two most important facts that you need to know:
1. Over the last 3/4 century average outdoor atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 ppm, from ~300 ppm to ~400 ppm. (That period accounts for nearly all of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 in human history.)
2. We have excellent, reliable, long-term sea-level measurements from hundreds of locations, many of them with continuous or near-continuous readings extending back more than a century. The best of those sea-level measurements and the most comprehensive studies of those measurements show that there has been no measurable acceleration in the globally averaged rate of sea level rise in over 80 years.
In other words, that 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has not, thus far, resulted in ANY detectable increase in the rate of coastal sea level rise.
Albert Einstein supposedly defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. We've done the experiment once, and we know the result. Adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere has not caused any detectable increase in the rate of sea level rise. It would be very surprising if repeating the experiment were to result in a substantially different outcome.
Predictions that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels will result in wildly accelerated sea-level rise are unscientific nonsense, driven by political and pecuniary interests, rather than sound science. But some activists wanted such predictions to guide coastal planning and regulations.
Contrary to what this article claims, the purpose of HB-819 was to ensure that coastal policies are guided by sound geophysical science, rather than political science. Most NC legislators agreed with that goal. In the Senate, there was only one "no" vote, and Democratic Governor Perdue did not veto it.
What do you think is "ridiculous" about that? Please quote the specific provision(s) of the bill that you think are ridiculous.
Here's a key point we have outstanding: Does this sale trigger the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, commonly known as SEPA.
Attorneys for the Board of Trustees and the Foundation argued that the sale itself did not trigger SEPA. SEPA includes two very broad categories that cover virtually every state action: “any action involving the expenditure of public moneys” and “any action involving . . . use of public land” that may negatively affect the environment.
We know it is public land. That appears to be no longer in dispute.
Is sale a use of public land? In a common sense evaluation, it is clear that sale is the ultimate use of public land. It is being used to get money. The money would not flow if the land were not sold. Though SEPA may not directly include the term “sale” in its text, the term “any action” certainly does include sale. Sale of land certainly falls under the descriptor “any action.”
Will the sale negatively affect the environment? Yes. By the buyer's own admission, there will be some development. How much remains to be seen, but more intense land use would clearly negatively affect the environment of this state. As such, the act of sale by the Board of Trustees would set into motion more intense land use, negatively affecting the environment, which would not happen in the absence of a sale. Thus, the action of sale is directly traceable to negative impacts to the environment of the state.
We hope the Court will concur that SEPA does apply to the sale. If it does, the Board of Trustees would have to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA). Unless they can show a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), they will have to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the Court finds that sale of public land into private hands with no enforceable restrictions (not assurances) on more intense land use, this would set a very bad precedent and leave all state lands open to sale with no Environmental Assessment (EA).
Why are they so adamant against doing an an Environmental Assessment (EA), which is a relatively easy process? They probably already know they can't show a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). That will trigger a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which would reveal the true consequences of this sale.
We need to know what is causing beach erosion, where and why. The CRC Science Panel ( CRC SP) and the Coastal Federation (CF) assert that the Sea Level has been, and will force erosion of the Coast and inundation of the tidelands; however, actual data from the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) shows Accretion increasing by 11% and Erosion decreasing by 13% since 1980, with most of the Accretion having taken place prior to most of the re-nourishment projects. This differs completely with the Scare Science of the CRC SP and the CF. Interestingly, the CRC SP has declined to answer questions regarding their science, have declined to do a comparative historical survey of NC Tidelands, and a comprehensive " in-the -Water" study of what is causing erosion has been blocked since the late '90's. Fortunately the General Assembly determined it would be better to have some real science, not TV science, before implementing planning policy that would take people's homes. USLandAlliance.US Bill Price PKS, NC
Passed 68-48 in House. Here is the ridiculous bill.
It should be noted, though, that no version of the bill resembled Colbert's parody, and no version of the bill would have "outlawed scientifically sound methods of measuring sea levels along the coast."
You can read the various versions of the bill and see for yourself, on the NCGA web site, here:
I have seen Black Panther In hofmann Forest which is declared extent. This happened on more than one occasion while hauling cotton for Jones County Cotton Gin There should be a lot moor research on this before The sale is allowed.
Thought I'd weigh in since I've written about this for the federation's news organization. The original language of the 2012 bill was very, very limiting and the Senate passed a version that had a few adjustments, but continued to dictate the science and how it could be used. The House rejected that bill and a House and Senate conference committee finally agreed on a four-year moratorium on setting a new state rate of rise. It also spelled out how the state's Coastal Resources Commission should go about developing a new rate. Here are my first and last stories on the legislation from the 2012 session.
Sea-Level Rise Debate May Move to Raleigh
Sea-Level Rise Debate Brings Curtain Down
And here's an interesting analysis of reporting on the issue
When a property owner wants to divest but maintain some protections on a property, an easement of some kind is used. This is very basic stuff, and NC State's administration has no excuse for not using a mechanism like this if they are being truthful about their intentions for the property to remain a working forest. Sadly, I believe this is just another example of North Carolina turning its back on all of the natural values of the state that have made it such a great place to work and live. Bottom line, this forest should not be sold. It brings in 2 million a year in revenue to the College of Natural Resources and serves a suite of invaluable, albeit, harder to monetize functions (e.g. habitat connectivity, military base buffering, water protection).
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation