Slashdot Mirror
Montana Legislator Introduces Bills To Give His State His Own Science (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The legislator in question is Republican Joe Read, who represents an area north of Missoula, home of many fine scientists at the University of Montana. Read has eight bills under consideration in the current session of the legislature, and two of those focus on climate change. One of them focuses on his state's role in any greenhouse gas regulatory program that would be instituted under a future president. Read is apparently unaware of past legal precedent indicating that the federal government has the legal ability to regulate pollutants. Instead, the preamble of the bill seemingly argues that Montana's emissions are all due to commerce that takes place within the state, and thus "any federal greenhouse gas regulatory program in the form of law or rule violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."
As a result, the bill would prohibit state agencies, officials, and employees from doing anything to cooperate with federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If passed, the Montana government "may not implement or enforce in any way any federal regulation, rule, or policy implementing a federal greenhouse gas regulatory program." But if you thought Read's grasp of constitutional law was shaky, you should check out his reason for objecting to doing anything about climate change. That's laid out in his second bill, which targets both science education and in-state programs designed to reduce carbon emissions. And it doesn't mince words, suggesting that pretty much all the scientists have it wrong: "the [US] National Climate Assessment makes the same errors as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Academy of Sciences is also fundamentally wrong about climate change."
As a result, the bill would prohibit state agencies, officials, and employees from doing anything to cooperate with federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If passed, the Montana government "may not implement or enforce in any way any federal regulation, rule, or policy implementing a federal greenhouse gas regulatory program." But if you thought Read's grasp of constitutional law was shaky, you should check out his reason for objecting to doing anything about climate change. That's laid out in his second bill, which targets both science education and in-state programs designed to reduce carbon emissions. And it doesn't mince words, suggesting that pretty much all the scientists have it wrong: "the [US] National Climate Assessment makes the same errors as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Academy of Sciences is also fundamentally wrong about climate change."
Weed grown in California and consumed in California is constitutionally outside the jurisdiction of the DEA because no matter what Congress says, the butterfly effect does not expand the ICC into a general warrant to regulate anything that might remotely impact interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, the US Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion. Even plants grown for personal use theoretically compete in the market with plants sold interstate.
So, is a photon a wave or a particle?
What science does is attempt to provide a model that can be used to understand how reality operates, but the model is not the thing it models.
Its been very successful at creating those models, and they are very useful, but no one who isnt trying to create a strawman is under any illusion that they are in some sense true. Truth is a mathematical concept not a scientific one.
No, they don't. They propose different hypotheses. The set of validated (by measurement, observation, proof, experiment, reasoning picked apart) hypotheses is what constitutes a theory.
We don't teach older models of the atom once Bohr's came along, and no other model of DNA beyond the double helix is taught.
Well, I remember being taught earlier models of the atom to demonstrate what was wrong with them and how Bohr got to his model. Perhaps texts these days aren't going into as much science history, which is a shame. Besides, these days they ought to teach wave mechanics right off the bat.
That is all.
Read is apparently unaware of past legal precedent indicating that the federal government has the legal ability to regulate pollutants
California's state legislature regularly passes laws regarding pollutants, so do several others. This "apparently unaware" dig is just a form of ad hominem attack.
No, and also no. You are apparently unaware that California is the only state which is permitted to set atmospheric emissions standards, because we've been doing it for so long and by the time the feds thought about arguing about it, it was too late. Other states are only permitted to choose whether they adopt California's standard, or the federal standard.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And that criticism has been brought up by physicists. You probably aren't going to get this based off of your post, but for others who are interested, in physics, many of the theories proposed are given weight first by the mathematical symmetries that they reveal, hinting they might be based in reality. That is the current state of string theory. The math looks very compelling. What makes it a theory is not that it hasn't been validated, but that it is TESTABLE. If a test can not be devised, then it is not a theory. In the case of string theory, we think we can test it, if only colliders with high enough energy existed (google string phenomenology).
Any scientist who proposes a hypothesis that goes against the prevailing ides without evidence is ignored. If they are loud and insistent but still have no evidence, then they are shunned.
What happens to those scientists that have evidence for ground breaking ideas that go against established scientific principles? Accolades, reknown, and sometimes a Nobel prize. See Raymond Davis Jr who devised a way to measure solar neutrinos that were created by the Sun’s nuclear fusion. His results showed that there something fundamental wrong with the Standard Model when it came to neutrinos.
Was he shunned? Was he obstracized? No. Other scientists were skeptical as they should be until his results were verified by Mataoshi Koshiba. For their work, they got 1/2 of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So where are these "engineers" that say we have to kill off a large percentage of the world's population?
You make the claim, you provide the supporting data. That's how it works man, If you can't then you are literally just making shit up.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Nazis were generally right wing in outlook. Learn history from somewhere other than Infowars. Don't forget the newpaper editorial last week from Alabama suggesting that the KKK go and lynch Democrats in DC. Of course, if right wingers suggest this then it's just a joke, but if left wingers suggest it they must be serious about it.