Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding
"Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding"
Share:
Virginia’s legislature commissioned a $50,000 study to determine the impacts of climate change on the state’s shores. To greenlight the project, they omitted words like “climate change” and “sea level rise” from the study’s description itself. According to the House of Delegates sponsor of the study, these are “liberal code words,” even though they are noncontroversial in the climate science community.
Instead of using climate change, sea level rise, and global warming, the study uses terms like “coastal resiliency” and “recurrent flooding.” Republican State Delegate Chris Stolle, who steered the legislation, cut “sea level rise” from the draft. Stolle has also said the “jury’s still out” on humans’ impact on global warming:
State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the “sea level rise” study in the General Assembly to one on “recurrent flooding,” said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.
He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?
“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.”
There is a resistance to calling science what it is, even in the studies commissioned to investigate the impact of climate change. The reality is that coastal cities are spending millions to respond to rising sea levels, like Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk spends $6 million a year to elevate roads, improve drainage, and help homeowners raise their houses, according to BBC. Already, 5 percent to 10 percent of the city’s lowest-lying neighborhoods have heavy flooding. The world’s largest naval base, based in Norfolk, is spending hundreds of millions to replace piers to withstand rising water. Yet they manage to make no mention of climate change or sea level rise in their response strategy.
FRONT
Further proof that republicans are suicidally stupid. Unfortunately, they’re trying to commit suicide for all of us.
and yet and yet and yet.. still so many Americans are willing to vote for these primitive a**holes who are so backward and ignorant they couldn’t win elections in any other civilized country… man, what has happened to America???
A lifetime of brainwashing, plus a determined, ruthless and evil ruling caste, possessed of fanatic class consciousness and solidarity and utter hatred and contempt for ‘the rabble’. If the proles ever awake from their stupour (which I very much doubt) they will simply be told that it is all ‘the communists’ fault.
and yet and yet and yet.. still so many Americans are willing to vote for these primitive a**holes who are so extreme and ignorant they couldn’t win elections in any other civilized country… man, what has happened to America???
Republicans keep managing to amaze me with their ridiculous nonsense. I have to give them some credit for that.
I don’t understand why anyone would do this… I don’t think I can ever vote Republican again.
“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.”
Unreal. So apparently Delegate Stolle doesn’t think people care about WHY those floodwaters are coming through their door?!? I’d like to know how you solve a problem if you don’t even acknowledge the source of the problem.
David, you silly, silly person. You’re assuming the prostiticians in question want to solve the problem, when they don’t. The want to ignore the problem except when they can get the maximum political benefit from making insane statements like calling SLR a left wing term.
The first, and some would say only, goal of some prostiticians (with a very heavy over-representation on the right) is to get re-elected. Everything else is a mere diversion.
Warming the globe is how we’re going to get at that last great oil pocket under the north pole ice field. Gotta melt that ice, permanently, so that we can get rigs up there. It’s not ignorance – it’s greed. Because oil revenue equals reelection campaign contributions, it’s also corruption, of course,(or “free speech” if you’re a republican). Short terms gains are being exchanged for creating hell for our grandchildren. That elevates the whole thing to nothing less than evil, with money at the heart of it all. Is anyone surprised by this?
“To greenlight the project, they omitted words like “climate change” and “sea level rise” from the study’s description itself.”
If they had used those words, it might have caused someone to cuccinelli all over them.
Yes, Virginia, there is sea level rise.
Virginia Lawmakers:”We’re going with the term ‘land level lowering’ — nothing to do with global warming.”
Everyday we think that these stupid rednecks can’t say anything more stupid/hateful, but each time they prove us wrong.
Love to see the mamas and papas (even if they’re not cousins).
LOL! Love it!
“Land level lowering” – awesome. I’m stealing that one.
For Rightwing Climate Cnuts, the truth, science, rationality and the inheritance of The Enlightenment are ‘Leftwing’. Sounds about right, to me. Conversely, greed, ignorance, stupidity, superstition, denial and mendacity are core Rightwing ‘moral values’.
Yes.what wholeheartedly defines the right now, be it auz, us etc… Downright blind greed and selfish ignorance I am afraid. The Unplesant side of human nature.
I have no problem with them doing this as long as they take responsibility for their actions when the sea level rises and they cry out “disaster area” and beg for federal dollars. If you’re willing to make this statement now, accept the repercussions when they occur later.
“We don’t want to use hot button words like ‘poor’, or ‘civil rights’. Instead, we’ll use words like ‘failure of financial imagination’ and ‘illusory non-Christian un-Biblical desires’.”
A few more “Left-wing” terms for the Congressman:
“Gravity”.
“Temperature”
“Science”
…and a toughy:
“Homeschooled moron”.
Saw a super cartoon a couple of days ago, of a duck floating on the water. It was titled “Conclusive Proof of Stable Sea Levels”
An arrow pointed to the waterline on the duck captioned “still only comes halfway up a duck”
That’s the level of reasoning, unfortunately.
FWIW, 90% of observed “sea level rise” in Virginia is actually caused by coastal subsidence or basically the land getting lower as a long term consequence of the Ice Ages ending.
Couldn’t be that the folks who wrote this understood that, and all you smug people so quick to be critical were ignorant of that, could it?
[JR: FWIW – not!]
I see, the water is not rising the land is sinking. LMAO
Source?
The coast has indeed been subsiding in Virginia. But it seems that’s only responsible for about 1/3 of the observed sea rate of sea level change. And of course the residual is consistent with global sea level rises, climate scientists are perfectly aware of these local differences and factor them into local predictions, etc. etc. etc.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/bph/Res2009/Engelhart%20et%20al_Geology_2009.pdf
The mechanism as I understand it is that the land under the heaviest Holocene glaciation (around the great lakes and northward) is rebounding from the glacial weight; conversely, land past the edge of the glacier (like VA coast) had been artifically tilted up when the glaciers were compressing the center of the continent, and so now it’s continuing to subside.
He won’t be able to provide a source, because I suspect he made it up. Scientists actually attribute only about 1/3rd of the sea level rise in the Virginia Tidewater to land subsidence. See this article that appeared in the Washington Post back in December.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/virginia-residents-oppose-preparations-for-climate-related-sea-level-rise/2011/12/05/gIQAVRw40O_story.html
This 90% figure appears to be a classic PIDOOMA. (“Pulled it directly out of my…”)
Is that called geological packing? Or ‘contents may settle during shipment?
Really? the subsidence of your shore is enough to raise sea levels measured by Tidal Gauge mean AND Satellite altimetry? that’s A LOT of subsidence,
Just goes to prove that reality does have a liberal bias.
Science is just NOT a matter of politics and this idiot (sorry to say he’s from my state) is just too DUMB to serve in a position of power or responsibility.
The worst thing isn’t that our government consists of a form of life that could be intellectually bested by your average cockroach. It’s that american’s CHOSE to put a form of life less intelligent than an average cockroach in that position.
ignorance and backwardness trumps science and reality.. what else is new.. only in America..
‘Fraid not! Very much the case in Australia, as well.
And in Canada too!
We’re all going to vote, right?
Not if Obama and his controllers have anything to do with it. Expect more Wisconsin style betrayals, starting with sabotage of the Rio Plus Twenty Conference.
What, Obama’s going to take your voter registration card away?
As an exercise, imagine a world where we had -one- fewer GOP Senator and the House had a scant Democratic majority. I’m going out on a limb and will say that world would be marginally -better- than the world we’re actually in. Not perfect, but better.
Personally I’m very leery of folks who spend effort in public places sapping energy from others. The world is full of dirty tricks.
Given a choice between “do” and “don’t bother” the former is usually better than the latter.
“Mumblebrain” … how appropriate.
If we call it “chocolate pudding” can we all be happy if it comes up our front step and into the house? How about “gravy”? Anything brown and murky would do.
I wish ThinkProgress had fleshed this one out a bit more.
Yes, it’s depressing that Delegate Stolle, along with (I’d guess) nearly every one of his Republican colleagues in Richmond, still thinks “the jury’s out” on global warming. But it’s only after reading the linked articles (one from the Virginian-Pilot, the other from the BBC) that we get the context for why he said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” and wanted it out of the bill’s language: so the bill could get passed under the radar of the state Tea Partiers, who go apoplectic when seeing the words “global” and “warming” juxtaposed and knee-jerk themselves into conspiracy theories.
Stolle may very well be the type of guy who wouldn’t recognize science if a bar chart hit him in the forehead, but he also sounds a little shrewder than TP has made him out to be: he was a “co-patron” of the bill, Virginia’s gotten its study, and it’s gotten it in part because he wanted it to. In the context of the know-nothing Tea Party types (and some of his own colleagues), he sounds, at the very least, pragmatic.
interesting. Thanks for the context. I’ve been guilty of such “pragmatic” actions at times as well–sometimes you have to be “dumb like a fox” to get things done…
Sad, but a helpful perspective nonetheless. Thanks, Taylor. I guess this is a microsample of John McCain’s life.
I agree with Taylor. Check out Daniel Kahan’s recent article in Nature, or chapter 4 in Daniel Khaneman’s book ‘Thinking Slow, and Fast’. Framing matters, words matter. If actionable legislation can be passed that helps Virginians adapt to rising sea level by calling it ‘recurrent flooding’, that works for me. What we need most are appropriate actions. If we have to frame those actions to make them linguistically more palatable to legislators, such as the TP, that might otherwise block them, at least we are moving toward solutions and easing the roadblocks.
Another republican denying the facts, they are determined to destroy the country, on all fronts. Shameful and Ridiculous, the whole lot of them.
Intelligent coastal redesign?
I’m taking bets that once the worst does start happening, the right wing loonies will say it’s all our fault, or why didn’t we explain ourselves better rather than using all that jingo that we couldn’t understand?
Absolutely! The target audience, the Dunning-Krugerites are thick enough to fall for anything, so long as it feeds their deeply inculcated hatreds.
Forgive my bluntness but : these people are f-ing idiots.
And they appear to be “winning”.
No one ever guaranteed you would not be born into a dark age. History is full of them. That’s what I tell myself, anyway.
What’s very annoying is to be alive just as the very worst amongst humanity drive us to extinction.
And I am sure they have their hands out to the Federal government for mitigation funds.
I sure hope Delegate Stolle’s house has the coastal resiliency to avoid the recurrent flooding that is coming in lower Tidewater Virginia from Advanced Tidal Surges due to the disappearance of global ice packs.
Amusing. So very amusing!
It is totally, 100% and absolutely irrelevant what this politicians believes. The insurance companies that cover property along the coast already know this is fact and have adjusted their insurance rates to accommodate those facts.
Money talks, politician BS walks.
Funny how the right come over like a bunch of commissars when their own narrow commercial interests are threatened.
That’s what came to mind for me too. Stalinism. Erasing people from photographs and concocting their own “science”.
As Colbert put it, “Reality is well known to have a liberal bias.”
Conservatives: “Don’t bring up anything that might upset us, you divisive Liberals, you! Oh, by the way: anything that we don’t agree with upsets us.”
It’s like trying to manage a government with a bunch of pampered 4 year olds…
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
It’s interesting that conservatives, who normally bemoan juries that take too long to convict people who are obviously guilty, have no problem saying things like the “‘jury’s still out’ on humans’ impact on global warming”…especially when the “jury” came in with a verdict about three decades ago…
Stolle’s quotation of the phrase “Left-wing term” was quoted in the Virginian-Pilot article, not by the BBC. The BBC quoted the less blunt “the jury’s still out” language.
Here’s another one for ya:
“This lesson seems to have been lost on the members of North Carolinas legislature. They are getting ready to vote on a bill that would prohibit government agencies from preparing for the estimated three feet rise in coastal sea levels which a state-appointed science panel has predicted will occur before the end of the current century. In fact, this forecast may soon be stricken from the public record — because it takes into account the impact of global warming. And global warming isn’t happening, right?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html
I’m more outraged at the amount of money we use on studies…..can we stop spending so much damn money…..It’s just getting worse and worse from each president elected. I know this is on the state level, but it doesn’t make it any better…..
Doesn’t libertarianism depend upon the availability of “perfect knowledge” in order to ensure contracts? How can a free man make a fair, informed and constitutional decision without any data?
How does mandating abject ignorance foster libertarian goals, unless those goals are fraud and deceit through information imbalance?
the good news … human caused climate change is practically unarguable. the bad news … the depths of human ignorance is almost unfathomable.
Even though I find it absurd for Republican lawmakers in Virginia (and nationwide) to underestimate humanity’s impact on the global climate, from a scientific standpoint it does not necessarily matter what conceptual definition(s) they decide to use in order to measure various climatic phenomena. So what if they say “recurring flooding” instead of “sea level rise”? As long as their data points to a particular problem, they will be forced to address it. To be sure, scientists prefer using similar definitions in their reports (indeed, they get a kick out of marketing these cognitive constructs). But from a policy standpoint, it is not really that necessary to do so.
However, the caveat is implicit in that their conscious decision to use different definitional terms in order to downplay our species’ impact on the environment can possibly result in disastrous public policy decisions. The fact that they vehemently oppose a probable cause to these climate maladies exposes their State (and nation) to more problems down the road.
For humor’s sake, here is an example: if your lawnmower stopped working, it would be illogical to reject the hypothesis that maybe it had run out of gasoline. You would be foolish to disassemble the entire machine before checking whether or not the tank was full. Meanwhile, your grass continues to grow and your neighbors become irritated. Eventually, your homeowners association decides to fine you $1000.00. Meanwhile, you have spent more than $2,000.00 trying to fix your lawnmower and now you cannot afford the fine. You ask your neighbor’s for help, but they keep giving you the answer you do not want to hear, “check to see if it has gasoline”. So, you keep spending money on new lawnmowers without ever realizing the cause of the problem because you are too stubborn to unscrew the gas cap. Soon, the grass is eight feet tall and your homeowner’s association has decided to vacate you from the premises.
What I am trying to say is that though the language of definitions does not necessarily matter, it is nonetheless imperative that public policy try to follow the simple outline of science, being:
1) Ask a question.
2) Do background research.
3) Construct a hypothesis.
4) Test with an experiment
5) Analyze results and draw a conclusion
6) If hypothesis is true, present results and contemplate a solution.
7) If hypothesis is false, rethink your hypothesis and try again. But do not reject a possible hypothesis just because you are too stubborn, ideological, or your political party wil shun you. That is not ethical what so ever.
For those doubting Global Warming, just review satellite pictures of the Polar Ice Caps in the North, to recent satellite pics and notice the huge difference.
In the south, notice how many ice shelves, that were hundreds of years old, have broken off of Antarctica.
How high will sea levels rise? Good question. Bad question is what caused the global warming – natural or man made – but deciding how high the oceans will rise are significant area of investigation which can’t be ignored – if you have beachfront property or live in low lying flood zones.
Another example of ostriches in the United States burying their heads in the sand, to further erode public trust and confidence in the science of climatology, oceanography, and engineering. We lament the rapid decline of performance by U.S. high school students in nearly every international measure of science and mathematics knowledge, to the point where the U.S. Department of Defense thinks this situation is a mater of national security. Yet, our government tolerates these policies of ignorance and idiocy to permeate to highest levels of our government.
Facts do indeed have a left wing bias because that’s the way facts are.
What a Shyster. “Let’s don’t talk about the cause. That’s left-wing. Let’s just talk about the effect. That’s all people care about.”
Seriously?
My existential dilemma is clarified. Sartre was right. Hell is other people.
I’ve seen this elsewhere lately in blog comments. The absurd idea climate science is “political”. Must have gone out in a recent republican talking points memo.
Evidently went out for drinks with the friendly GOP neighbor in North Carolina proposing sea level rise is natural process predictable from past 100 years.
Even though I find it absurd for Republican lawmakers in Virginia (and nationwide) to underestimate humanity’s impact on the global climate, from a scientific standpoint it does not necessarily matter what conceptual definition(s) they decide to use in order to measure various climatic phenomena. So what if they say “recurring flooding” instead of “sea level rise”? As long as their data reveal a particular problem, they will be forced to address it. To be sure, scientists prefer using similar definitions in their reports (indeed, they get a kick out of marketing these cognitive constructs). But from a policy standpoint, it is not really that necessary to do so.
However, the caveat is implicit in that their conscious decision to use different definitional terms in order to downplay our species’ impact on the environment can possibly result in disastrous public policy decisions. The fact that they vehemently oppose a probable cause to these climate maladies exposes their State (and Nation) to more problems down the road.
For humor’s sake, here is an example: if your lawnmower stopped working, it would be illogical to reject the hypothesis that maybe it had run out of gasoline. You would be foolish to disassemble the entire machine before checking whether or not the tank was full. Meanwhile, your grass continues to grow and your neighbors become irritated. Eventually, your homeowners association decides to fine you $1000.00. Meanwhile, you have spent more than $2,000.00 trying to fix your lawnmower and now you cannot afford the fine. You ask your neighbors for help, but they keep giving you the answer you do not want to hear, “check to see if it has gasoline”. So, you keep spending money on new lawnmowers without ever realizing the cause of the problem because you are too stubborn to unscrew the gas cap. Soon, the grass is eight feet tall and your homeowner’s association has decided to vacate you from the premises.
What I am trying to say is that though the language of definitions does not necessarily matter, it is nonetheless imperative that public policy try to follow the simple outline of science, being:
1) Ask a question.
2) Do background research.
3) Construct a hypothesis.
4) Test with an experiment
5) Analyze results and draw a conclusion
6) If your hypothesis is true, present results and contemplate a solution.
7) If your hypothesis is false, reformulate it and try again. But do not reject possible independent variables just because you are ideologically stubborn or are afraid that your Political Party will shun you. That is not ethical what so ever.
Nobody can ever accuse the Republicans of letting FACTS stand in their way of the truth!
Nobody can accuse most all of the Republicans of ever letting TRUTH stand in the way of their “facts!”
Meanwhile, the American People are reaping the ‘rewards’ of their last election.
Come on people, study the real facts and get out there and vote!
There are sane people in Virginia who know what’s going on with global warming and sea-level rise. There just aren’t enough of them in the state legislature.
It’s a sign of insanity when a political group thinks it can make decrees about the behavior of the physical world. There are precedents, e.g. Soviet geophysics dicated the continental drift was impossible because Marx had written that the continents are unchanging, which reminds me Inhofe’s recent book on the alleged hoax.
“He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?
“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.””
Like I’ve mentioned,I’ve read Atlas Shrugged at least a dozen times.It seems to me like this little side-stepping the real issue maneuver is precisely what Ayn Rand criticised several times in the novel by putting this strategy in the mouth of characters she considered villains.Oh well,just another thing to go along with how much she as a life long atheist would despise the fundamentalist faith of these supporters (Ahhh,the little ironies of life,Ehhh Alissa??)
sarcasm alert on my post,everyone.
Another case of Republicans trying to “HIDE THE TRUTH” in it’s clearest description, by replacing the proper terms with ambiguios phrases, to try and hide the REAL TRUTH!
“Political Correctness” anyone. I thought the GOP hated PC?
The last statement of the article is patently false
“The world’s largest naval base, based in Norfolk, is spending hundreds of millions to replace piers to withstand rising water. Yet they manage to make no mention of climate change or sea level rise in their response strategy.”
You should read these excerpts:
THE NAVY in it’s own paper titled:
Navy Climate Change Road Map 21 may 2010an excerpt:
A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast icesheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing. ref 1,2
While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.
Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations
worldwide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures
on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and
southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and
storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal
infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.
According to Global Warming / Climate Change deniers there is NO GLOBAL
WARMING. They believe Currier & Ives and Norman Rockwell. 4 seasons the
world in equilibrium.
That is an illusion. This is by choice. The
International Meteorological Organization voted in 1923 approx.to make the last
ten years temperatures the ones to average. Then in 1953 becomes W.M.O.. Who then
despite the fact oceans rose 1-2 inches a century for 7000 years and the rate of
rising increased to a rate of 4-6 inches a century. And the average global
temperature was up 1 deg.F from 1900=1950* chose 1950 as a baseline. Hiding all
the warming from industrialization. It’s gone up 2 deg F since then.The
following is from The Director of the Navy’s Task Force Climate
Change.++ Navy Rear Adm. David W. Titley:”The observations have shown us
that through the 20th century, sea level rose by an average of two millimeters
per year, So that means over the course of the century, we had about 20
centimeters, or roughly eight inches, of sea level rise. The sea level rise
we’ve seen in the first 10 years of the new century is already 50 percent
greater than the average sea level rise in the 20th century.”
So I say ANYONE who denies Global Warming is UNAMERICAN!!!
references:1. UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, The Copenhagen Diagnosis,
2009:Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science (November 2009).2.
United States Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts
inthe United States, Cambridge University Press (2009).http://www.navy.mil/navydata/d…
Popular Science Aug 1989 “Global Warming: Are we waking up 15 years too
late?”**Fundamentals of Meteorology Second Edition Louis J. Batton ISBN
0-13-341123-0+http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201…
http://www.navy.mil/Search/pri… Navy
Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy Story Number:
NNS100621-086/21/2010By Bob Freeman, Office of the Oceanographer of the
Navy
I’m glad you read the whole piece. Find more here.
http://davinci-concepts.blogspot.com/
a comment by time traveler on NASA plans capsule to take humans into deep space 2 weeks ago
“America
the mediocre. This is what you get when you allocate 90% of your school
budget to SPORTS and 10% to everything else. This doesn’t just produce
fewer and fewer science and math literate high school graduates who
might become scientists and engineers, it produces a public that simply
DOESN’T GET scientific exploration, and consequently idiot politicians
who represent them.
Today, a full 40% of this country’s population is so scientifically
ignorant that it rejects evolution – one of the most well established
scientific principles – in favor of fairy tales from the bronze age.
It’s sad to be seeing this nation’s days of glory fading in the rear view mirror.
So I say to The Virginia & North Carolina Legislators: You are UNAMERICAN!!!
The Navy knows humans and changing the climate. I’m not sure if Norfolk’s strategy mentions it. Will have to check.