News-Record.com

Doug:

Chesser is a serial critic of the Center for Climate Strategies (see, e.g., the hatchet job he did on Maryland's process: http://www.examiner.com/a-972918~Paul_Chesser__Beware_of_climate_control.html and the actual description of Maryland's process: http://www.mde.state.md.us/air/mccc/ ).

The NC commission has held seven announced meetings. It's recommendations are available in a report that is on its web-site (http://www.ncclimatechange.us/ and http://www.ncclimatechange.us/capag.cfm ). All of the meetings have been open to the public, have been announced, and have materials available. A wealth of supporting material is available at the site.

If people take the time to examine NC's web-site, they will find that the commission has acted in an incredibly transparent way.

Finally, some perspective is in order regarding what the commission produced--a set of recommendations. The commission has no authority to change policy, just to make recommendations.

Addendum: Ed Cone cites reports of possible bias by the Locke Foundation, based on funding from Exxon-Mobil, etc.* Doug

Bottom line: we've been debating these issues for years on the substance. What usually comes back is personal attack and paranoid conspiracy theories. That's telling.*John Hood

Wow! John is still using the old Fox network neo-con republican defense when the heat is on his Global corporate funding buddies...That is really "telling" that hell will never freeze his cool aid drink when those conspiracy theories Exxon checks make it into his John Locke bank account..

Hey John! Do really believe Crude Oil prices at a hundred bucks a barrel is a not a conspiracy by unknown free market forces in the universe....

Addendum: Ed Cone cites reports of possible bias by the Locke Foundation, based on funding from Exxon-Mobil, etc.* Doug

Doug! I been thinking about John Cone and Ed Hood going at it over this Global Al Gore warming stuff. It appears that they have got it backwards. Watching these two got at it reminds me of two school yard 6 th grader sissies on a recess break during summer school throwing snowballs at each other. They are assuring themselves and the Principle that nobody will be harm and that their summer school uniforms will be all wet!

The link provided by Mr. Ribar does not include the data requested by JLF. Instead, it merely summarizes the data and/or presents it in the form of graphs. This is not source data.

This would be like me citing a statistic without producing the methodology upon which the statistic is based. Or better yet, showing you the answer to a math problem without providing the proof.

This would be like me citing a statistic without producing the methodology upon which the statistic is based. Or better yet, showing you the answer to a math problem without providing the proof.* Sam

Right Sam! Sorted like that math problem in Iraq where the neo-con republican Bush answer was "WMD's are here! " Sam! Have you consider a career with the Albert Enstein Science Math Institution why World Tower Blg 7 fell in 10.3 seconds without a airplane smashing into it?

Here is a fast pop quiz for you Sam on Global Warming?

If you were drowning in the Northwest passage at the North Pole during the summer season and saw a floating small iceberg with 4 objects on it. What are those objects and which one would you chose to save you and the reason for it?

No cheating now....By the Way, the objects are

1. Ed " Bloggering King" Cone
2. John " Exxon" Hood
3. A very thin white polar bear
4. A very large white guy name Al Gore with a McDonalds Ad on the back of his snowsuit

I want the answers on my desk the first thing in the morning and you can't consult with Bubba. Now move it!

Having open meetings isn't the same as providing full information.

In the rush to "do something" about climate change, it seems to me we adopt policies without understanding cost to achieve them. Everybody feels good that Greensboro is now a "cool city," for example, but that required setting a goal before determining exactly what the goal is. And no one has any idea what if any effect any of this will have on climate change, which is supposed to be the purpose. But I guess even talking about these concerns makes one a Luddite.

Doug:

If you haven't done so please review the information that has been provided on the NC commission's web site and then describe what specific additional materials or procedures they should have provided.

Besides holding announced open meetings, providing all meeting materials on the web, and offering the draft recommendation report for public comment what else should they have done?

To put this in a little perspective, do you think that everyone who testified or assisted with the Iraq Study Group's report should now be required to turn over all of their background data? Review the ISG's web-site (http://www.usip.org/isg/ ) and then go back to the NC commission's; recall also that the ISG had a $1 million budget to disseminate its materials. By the (seemingly reasonable?) standard set by the ISG, the NC commission was both open and transparent.

It's fine and understandable for you, Chesser, or others to criticize the commission's recommendations or findings. However, this should be done based on the content of the report and the wealth of supporting materials that are available. To claim that the commission "isn't forthcoming with data" implies that it is hiding something or trying to sneak something by the public is preposterous.

Sorry, the last sentence should have been:

To claim that the commission "isn't forthcoming with data" implies that it is hiding something or trying to sneak something by the public, which are preposterous.

Dave, when I read statements like this:

"The direct economic toll of global
warming on North Carolina may be enormous and would likely include increasing: crop loss
due to drought, episodic water shortages, coastal flooding and erosion, and building cooling
costs"

I wonder what they're based on. What are the scientific projections about crop loss due to drought, for example? Sure, we've been in a drought this year, but what has caused that and how will the actions recommended avoid such droughts in the future?

A Charlotte Observer editorial published today notes that Richard Heim of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville spoke to Charlotte's chapter of the American Meteorological Society Tuesday. He reported that data taken from tree rings show that numerous dry periods have occurred in this area over the past 17 centuries, including one in the 7th century that lasted for 50 years.

So, how much are we prepared now to spend on strategies to prevent such dry periods? Can we actually guarantee any results?

Unless I've missed them, I haven't seen any cost estimates associated with these recommendations or any projection that these steps will forestall droughts or coastal flooding or other recurring natural disasters.

Doug:

That's a reasonable criticism, especially when the statement doesn't quantify anything.

However, you CAN determine what the statement is based on if you follow the commission's records. The statements were developed by consensus first within a technical working group and then by the commission itself. The specific language that you are referring to appears to have been initially contributed by the technical working group on cross-cutting issues sometime between its 7th and 8th conference calls and considered by the TWG and then the whole commission after that. While there are no cites, the TWG consisted of representatives from a number of state agencies (such as the state energy office and DAQ), outside experts, and different community representatives. Moreover, the specific statement that you are citing was (and is) available for public comment.

Where's the lack of transparency? There is nothing under-handed here. In what way is the commission not forthcoming?

To claim that the commission "isn't forthcoming with data" implies that it is hiding something or trying to sneak something by the public, which are preposterous.* Dave

Right! Sorted like the past 9/11 commission report uh Dave? or the Warren JFK commission report? Or the big kicker, The WACO independent Senate report that the feds didn't murder 87 women and children.

Dave, this is probably a matter of semantics.

An organization can be transparent in its operations but still have nothing there to see.

To me, being forthcoming would include having some details about costs, benefits and realistic expectations.

Paul Chesser may have something different in mind.

Why doesn't Doug question the validity of Carolina Journal's complaint? Did he even bother to call the commission to ask for a response? If he did, why didn't he report it? How does he know the complaint is on the level? This extremist organization is famous for distorting evidence whenever it suits its barbarian-capitalism agenda. It always puts profit ahead of responsible solutions to social problems -- responsible solution that yes, cost money, and require an investment of tax dollars. I hope the recommendations includes regulations, a tax on gasoline, and a return to fair taxes on corporations and the wealthy, who are not pulling their weight in our society.

Barbarian capitalism?

Putting profits ahead of responsible solutions to social problems?

Wow.

I work for a company that puts profits ahead of ... losing money and going out of business. Is that barbaric?

What company isn't barbaric in that sense?

It's an easy answer to say that companies should pay "fair" (i.e., more) taxes, and that this money should be put at the disposal of those with the right social values. Unfortunately, these "fair" taxes have to be paid at some point by real people. And the people who pay are owed real debates about the benefits that will accrue from the additional money taken from their pockets. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with pressing for answers to practical questions like: If we implement these measures, what will they cost and what difference will it make?