Bill Price | Indy Week

Bill Price 
Member since May 23, 2012


I am boring. Sorry if that offends.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Durham needs 1,600 new trees a year

Don't mow your Grass for a couple of years, and you'll be surprised how many trees you have, all for FREE !
BP
( Oh, That's right, if you don't mow your grass, the City will mow your Grass and trees down for you, and bill you. This is about Paying to plant trees. )

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 02/08/2015 at 6:14 PM

Re: “N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences director puts kibosh on documentary about sea-level rise

Reading all this, I just had this thought.
Most everyone agrees that Sea Level has been rising very very slowly since the last Ice Age (glaciation) , and even NOAA and Sea Grant acknowledge that there has been " no signal" of acceleration for the NC coast. So why have we had an acceleration of Accretion by 11% and a 13% decline of erosion of NC Sea shore since 1980? Irrespective of acceleration, why do we have more Accretion and less Erosion if Sea Level is rising? Or is all this just mumbo - jumbo Political FoSi?
Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

Posted by Bill Price on 12/03/2013 at 11:00 AM

Re: “N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences director puts kibosh on documentary about sea-level rise

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

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 11/16/2013 at 4:53 PM

Re: “The GOP's free-market reforms are aimed at public education

After decades of Liberal Education policies, many Schools in NC have a 50% dropout rate, and it is estimated that 20% of the population is functionally illiterate ( i.e. can't fill out an employment application). The situation is getting worse to the point that America ( and NC ) is losing our competitive position, but, for the Professional Educators, it's all about getting more, and more, and more money.
Just how bad does it have to get before we do something ?
Medium wage America has 14% manufacturing employment and falling .. High wage Germany has 34% manufacturing employment and rising.. What's going on? Well , Germany has 2/3 education in trades, while in America, every student is supposed to go to college.
Not working out very well, is it?
Bill Price PKS- NC

2 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 04/17/2013 at 11:10 AM

Re: “The One Percent will eat the poor, and other prophecies

How come it's greed for a person to want to keep the money they made,
but it's not greed to want to take money for yourself from those that earned it?

9 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 10/25/2012 at 11:23 AM

Re: “The agenda behind the sea level rise bill: from the Carolina coast to the Kochs

May I note that scholasticism of the middle ages demanded by the social, political, and religious intelligencia, required adherence to " Flat Earth" consensus science.
Today, the Green religion demands adherence to AGW/ SLR consensus science.
Fortunately, today, the government doesn't use inquisitions to enforce the "Green Faith.". ... yet.
In any event, not being a scientist or a PhD, I have several questions about AGW / SLR, based on real world observations. The SP scientists have ignored the questions since Feb 2011. One area of question:
I wonder if you have compared 1850's US Gov. Coast Surveys with current maps to get an idea of how much inundation on NC tidelands has occurred over 160 years?
The NC CRC Science Panel said SLR has been 18" / 100 y. and scientists said 1 foot SLR causes up to 2 Miles inundation of tidelands. That would equal 4 miles of inundation.
I have looked and I can't see it.., Can you? Have you seen a comparative survey? I wonder why?
We have been asking the Science Panel , and an Educational Institution to study this and other questions .. They have declined. ( Not looking for 500 non-relevant reports,,, Only a single survey. ( Of course Erosion and Accretion due to winds, waves, dredging, and currents should be differentiated from Inundation. ) I wonder why they haven't done, and won't do the study, or even answer a question?
Video of the Science Panel meeting shows a member say, 'What's the big deal. Let's just wait 5 years and see what happens."
So, why is it so many folks don't want to hear both ( or any other) side of the issue, don't care about verifiable data,,,,,, and demand immediate implementation of 39” regs. ?
(Don’t know about you, but I get suspicious when the scientific experts won’t answer questions, and don't want to consider any facts,,, but their own .)
I also wonder if you know how much damage the SP’s 39” SLR/ 2100 Rule will cause native taxpaying coastal property owners in loss of property rights, and cost local governments to replace schools, government buildings, infrastructure etc.? Have you seen any computation of this? Do you care?
Clearly, if Sea Level is or will rise rapidly, we need to know it and plan for it, but should important public decisions be based on verifiable data, or on Comedy Skit, Consensus, Theoretical , Computer Modeled Science ?
Maybe you think we should simply shut up and blindly accept whatever the SP says and do what they direct without question? Or, do American Citizens have a right to ask questions of the scientific experts? If so, should the experts answer the questions? If so , why won’t they?
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 06/20/2012 at 10:00 PM

Re: “Colbert's wet kiss for NCGOP's ban on rising seas

No one disputes that Sea Level has been rising since the last Ice Age - very slowly; and certainly, if Sea Level Rise (SLR) is accelerating rapidly, we need to know about it, and plan for it.
To do that, the North Carolina General Assembly has begun to consider a Draft Sea Level Rise Law that appears to be for “comprehensive verifiable science”, and against “selective political science”.
What’s the problem ?
We know that the Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel (SP) and scientists said, SL has been and is rising 18 inches / 100y , that 1 foot of SLR would inundate up to 2 miles of tidelands, and their literature showed natural and Government caused erosion ( while generally ignoring any accretion). From that, they jumped to proposing Planning Policy for 39” SLR by 2100.
However, there are Real world concerns with the Science Panel’s science:
• A visual comparison of 1850’s US Coast Survey surveys of NC tidelands, with recent surveys, don’t seem to show 4 miles ( 150 y @ 18 inches / 100y ), or 2 miles ( 1 foot), or even 1 mile ( 6 inches SLR/ 100y) of inundation that, based on their science, would have occurred.
• They do not seem to differentiate between general erosion versus inundation caused by SLR.
• They have ignored US Coast Survey and US Fish Services tide gage data from the 1850’s thru 1950.
When asked about this, the Scientists have refused to answer questions, have declined to do analysis of the surveys and historic tide gage data, and have refused to participate in an Open Public Forum. If they support their beliefs, shouldn’t they be able to answer several simple questions? Instead they have tried to denigrate skeptics as being ”willfully ignorant” developers against science, even though it’s the Local Property Owners and Local Governments ( along the esturine tidelands ) that will be most hurt by the SLR rules, not the developers.
As an excuse for the lack of science, the Science Panel said, the CRC didn’t ask them to do a rigorous Scientific Report. Regrettably, it appears that the Literature Search, upon which the Science Panel’s recommendations are based, was a one sided selection of Pro AGW and Pro SLR reports. ( Although, considering that NOAA’s “No Regrets” office in Charleston is paying scientists millions to prove SLR and AGW, it’s not surprising that there’s lots of Pro AGW and SLR literature.)
An anonymous critic, sent me a link to a Book by a scientist, essentially  attributing most all Coastal Erosion to Sea Level Rise. asserting that it answered my questions and did in fact show inundation of tidelands.
  See here >> http://core.ecu.edu/geology/riggs/DROWNING…   /   ( I had read it before)
The Book does show a lot of erosion, and shows pre 1850's survey maps and charts, but as far as I can find, it does not show comparison with post 1850’s U.S. Government Coast Survey surveys,comparision with which, the scientists say should show 4 miles ( or at least 2 miles) of inundation. (Look it over yourself.) ( Differentiation of erosion/accretion by wind/ waves, dredging, or currents, versus inundation is asserted.)
Another anonymous critic said I should look at the CRC’s ariel photography and surveys of NC Beachline. Having been on the original Carteret County Beach Preservation Task Force in the late ‘90’s, I am quite familiar with said surveys, and the more recent surveys done by the Carteret County Beach Commission. The CCBC’s “ theory” is that Beach Erosion is due to removal of sand from the along-shore current due to off-shore disposal of dredge spoils. Absolutely, there are thousands of engineering reports and scientific studies of NC Beach Erosion, all based on ACOE computer modeled data or remote monitoring. In the ACOE 111 Study of Beaufort Inlet, the Corps said that it’s Computer Model for planning showed net cross-inlet transport was from West to East, but surprisingly admitted that, direct observations showed net transport was from East to West. 180 dregrees directly backward. ( So much for the expert’s Computer Models?) I have tried for over 12 years to get a comprehensive empirical in-the-water study of NC Beach erosion using ADCP’s done. So far no Government Agency or Educational Institution will do the study.
Is it appropriate to impose Rules based on a one sided Literature Search while intentionally ignoring observable real world conditions ?
So, maybe the present rate of Sea Level Rise will Accelerate? Maybe not?
While no one is omniscient, nonetheless we recognize that, sometimes, decisions should be made based on the preponderance of the evidence, but it must be difficult to have confidence in evidence from scientists that won't provide comprehensive verifiable science based on documentation of past SL trends.
Being responsible to fairly protect the property rights of all the citizens of North Carolina, it looks like the General Assembly is just trying to get some comprehensive verifiable science, before making important public policy decisions.
Or, are we supposed to blindly accept what the scientists say, and do what they demand without question?
Bill Price Pine Knoll Shores
( Footnote: Science is important. We need to be able to trust Science. But unfortunately, when scientists won’t do science, won’t answer questions, and won’t participate in an Open Public Forum, what's going on? )

0 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Bill Price on 06/07/2012 at 5:44 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2015 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation