As Colbert transitions the NC Sea Level Rise panel continues its work:
The N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s science panel made a few final adjustments Monday to the draft five-year update to its sea level rise report before agreeing it was ready for peer review.
The draft – which contains projections of 2-6 inches of sea level rise in the next 30 years, varying by location along the North Carolina coast – will now be sent to the CRC by Wednesday, Dec. 31. From there it will be sent to state agencies for internal review and to scientists and others outside of state agencies for external review. The CRC has also selected Dr. Bob Dean of the University of Florida and Dr. James Huston, formerly of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to act as a Technical Peer Review Group for the report. ...
The General Assembly directed the CRC to have the panel perform the five-year update to its 2010 sea level rise report. The direction was made in response to concerns and criticism of the report that came from the public – including local government representatives – during public meetings.
Critics of the 2010 report have said the data wasn’t reflective of entire state coast and that including a rate of 39 inches of projected sea level rise by 2100 for creating state policies would hurt the coastal economy. In response, the CRC charged the panel with doing a five-year update and narrowing the scope of the update down from the year 2100 to the next 30 years. ...
There were five audience members at the Monday meeting, three of whom spoke about the draft update during public comments. ...
For several commentators, the panel’s continued inclusion of the IPCC report as a source of information was an issue. David Burton, science adviser and board member of NC-20, a nonprofit organization of local government representatives from the 20 coastal counties in North Carolina, said he thinks the current draft is much better than the 2010 report, but he thinks the report needs “more balance,” meaning more language acknowledging the disputed nature of sea level rise.
Mr. Burton reiterated a point he made in his comments at the Nov. 19 panel meeting, saying he thinks the panel shouldn’t use data from the IPCC report. He said he had been one of the IPCC report’s expert reviewers and that the report’s sea level rise acceleration scenarios aren’t credible.
Dr. Jim Early, a retired engineer, ..., along with John Droz Jr., a retired physicist from Morehead City who has been outspoken on the draft update, and Dr. Stan Young, assistant director for bioinformatics of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences and adjunct professor of statistics at N.C. State University, submitted a list of 31 proposed changes to the draft. These proposals ranged from language changes – like replacing the word “sustainability” with “human well-being” – to requests to omit the IPCC report from the report and include references from sources like the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which dissents from the IPCC’s views.
Mr. Droz, while present at the meeting, didn’t comment. However, in an email to CRC Chairman Frank Gorham, also copied to the News-Times, Mr. Droz said the draft discussed at the meeting “did a reasonably good job of making a technical matter understandable to the public.” However, he said the draft makes the assumption that the IPCC is “the gold standard” for sea level rise information.
Is it just plain crazy to question the IPCC's science? or healthy skepticism? My impression was that the IPCC was doing a good job of including measures of uncertainty in their forecasts.