Quite the opposite concern, John. These unscientific, anecdotal "observations" will be used to forward the "new normal" mantra of "rising sea level" and, mark my words, WILL be postulated as peer-reviewed by the professors and grad students at UNC who have a $grant with an $agenda. This will affect society (real people) through governmental decisions made on unreliable "data."
When this happens, please show it to me. Until then, it's unsubstantiated opinion and doesn't seem to be based on any facts. And if you think people are getting rich on the grants that drive this project, I'd love to see that proof as well.
Science used to be about investigating and proving or disproving a theory based on objective data. This is not one of those cases. It is a paid fun run, nothing more.
I'm not even sure what this means. Science hasn't changed. You can choose to believe it has, but it won't matter. Science will continue moving forward, even if it discovers something you don't want it to.
John, I like your naïveté'.
I won't have to show or prove anything, it will happen before your eyes. Just watch.
This ain't my first rodeo with these grant-funded folks. It is difficult to disagree with pre-determined outcomes, such as reg-neg in 2007-2008 (albeit with lawyers and a judge who used flawed data). It took 7 years to turn the tide on that failure, based on poor "science," but we did and continue.
Now that i have gone off-topic - I appreciate your response and I think I understand where you are coming from, and simply agreeably disagree.