We’ve posted previously about the do-over ordered by the legislature on the projections of sea level changes along the coast. This information is important because it can affect insurance rates, and permitted uses of private property, for decades to come.
The chairman of the NC Coastal Resources Commission, a McCrory appointee, is still sticking to his guns about not appointing anyone who doesn’t worship at the church of global warming to the study panel. (Here’s his June 11 report to CRC insiders. The chairman appears to be fiercely tap-dancing around the mandate handed down by the General Assembly. He’s working awfully hard to discredit the proposed appointees who just so happen to not blindly accept Al Gore’s global warming theories.) Apparently, some worshipers already on the committee were raising a fuss and threatening to quit if any “non-believers” were to join the team.
Global warming skeptic and NC-based scientist John Droz is still keeping the heat on the CRC. We obtained a copy of one of his more recent email communications with CRC chairman Frank Gorham:
Thank you for the new CRC June 21 minutes: they are helpful, and did answer my questions about the “Technical Peer Review Group”.My main comment on the document you sent (attached):Your “restating the obvious” that there are “two sides” to this issue — for and against sea level rise — is an unfortunate and serious misunderstanding of what has transpired to date. It is quite understandable how you could have been mislead to believe that, as there were numerous articles that made that totally false claim.That is one reason I took the trouble to write out and send you the outline of what actually transpired. Please take the time to read this carefully, as the fundamental issue here actually has nothing to do with sea level rise at all!Once you truly understand this, you will see the inaccuracies of some of your 6/11/14 statements and conclusions.For example, Dr. Stan Young has taken no position about SLR at all, so to say he is in the “anti-SLR” camp is simply not true.You wrote that “no new skill sets” were to be found with the new applicants, that the existing Science Panel members did not already have. I’m sorry but I also question that conclusion. Again, using Dr. Young as an example, he has a PhD in statistics (and works for the National Institute of Statistical Science) and is a medical specialist. I am unaware of any Science Panel member who has either of these credentials, much less both.Most importantly, Dr. Young HAS taken a firm stand about genuine Science standards being adhered to — and that IS the primary issue here.Yet your words (6/11/14) are that adding Dr. Young to the Science Panel would “dilute it.”————If you insist on saying there are two sides here are, then they would more accurately be:1) those that are promoting real science, and2) those that are advocating political science.So the question is, which of these “sides” is the CRC supporting?Again, I would politely ask that you reconsider your prior decision — since the fundamental premise of making it was inaccurate.