Montana Legislator Introduces Bills To Give His State His Own Science (arstechnica.com) 339
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."
Stupids gonna stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oooh. How would citizenship work? Would residents of Montana just become Canadian citizens? My parents live there. Would I be eligible for Canadian citizenship under this plan? If that's the case, I fully support this plan. Dual citizenship would be awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that simply says that the Dems actually pursue corruption in their ranks and punish them, while the GOP ignores corruption and then blindly defends their own. The GOP actively supports corruption by ignoring it in their own ranks
Re:Stupids gonna stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
The first person to know everything. Impressive.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
"I know better than the experts, who actually studied the subject."
Why is it that politicians especially fall into the category of people who don't know what they don't know. Is undeserved blind confidence a trait that's required to go into the field?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, campaign contributions, to be honest.
But the only difference between a Bribe and a campaign competition, is you just have to tell people you accepted the contribution and its all hunky dory.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
>Is undeserved blind confidence a trait that's required to go into the field?
yes, because people will mostly vote for the person that gives a confident answer (even if wrong) over the one that says they don't know or aren't sure.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy is a fucking idiot.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends. A big factor would be how the laws affect other states and countries.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Legislating which science a state will use is moronic.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.
(Paracelsus)
The same can be said about pollutants: All substances are pollutants; there is none which is not a pollutant. The right dose differentiates a pollutant and a necessary substance. So given enough of it, also CO2 is a pollutant.
Re: (Score:3)
Plants need it. People exhale it. I would say its pretty damn needed to exist. Why would you call it a polluntant?
The same can be said about shit. Plants need it and we excrete it, so why would you call shit a pollutant?
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"There are really 4 or even 5 groups in this debate:"
You forgot one, the trolls. They make claims like that the social engineers want everyone to "live off the land". But all wealth is derived from the land, so we all live off the land already. What they want is for people to live sustainably. That does mean changes to personal habits for the majority of people, but it only necessarily means large changes for the most wasteful, which is to say the 1% and above, with those furthest above having to make the l
Making up groups of peopole is insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just plain dishonest. Which is the case here? You forgot the fifth group: idealogues who NEED a story that helps them support their insanity as rational.
Your group 1 does not exist.
Your group 2 does not exist,
Your group 3 does not exist, because you added a caveat that does not exist to them.
Your group 4 and 5 does.
You invented 1 and 2 so that you could deny AGW while pretending you're in the moderate rational middle. Without them your group 3, those that don't accept that the problem is a real big one with dangerous consequences is still a massive outlier and not in the middle of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just be in denial about groups 1-3 because you are an ideologue (corrected that for you) that needs a story to tell that supports your insanity as irrational.
Re:Making up groups of peopole is insanity (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
- The scientists: Our current model predicts a massive change, we don't know what that means or what will happen, but we probably have to do something
The only way to think this is what scientists are saying about climate change is to be so committed to your preconceptions that you ignore what scientists are actually saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a model that will accurately predict the future, I will give you a million dollars. A scientist that tells you otherwise is not a scientist.
Scientists know that the models cannot accurately predict the future, and they will tell you so. That's why they draw error bars around the expected values.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? You actually think that's some kind of meaningful response?
Let me break it down for you. You said scientists say four things:
1. "Our current model predicts a massive change"
2. "We don't know what that means"
3. "Or what will happen"
4. "But we probably have to do something"
Scientists don't say any one of those 4 things. You would like it if they did, and if they introduced lots of equivocations about precision but misnamed it accuracy to help your cause, and if they elided the difference between "
Re: (Score:2)
... the The scientists actually say all models predict change, all models says we are the contributing factor, we should do something about it .. ..when asked what they will give possibilities : most of which would save money in the long run, and so could be implemented regardless
Re: (Score:2)
There are really 4 or even 5 groups in this debate
No.
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is we don't understand a lot of it and scientists continuously walk back statements they held in the past"
The past is a problem alright, at least for the doom-sayers. The Miocene Climatic Optimum (the paleontologists phrase, not mine, nor apparently the IPCC's) was warmer than now. The Miocene Climactic Optimum was warmer than that. Even the last interglacial (Sangamon or Eemian depending on location) was warmer than now. The Holocene Climatic Optimum (that phrase again) 6000 years ago was warm
So which is it? (Score:2)
Re:So which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you people do this without brain damage from all the cognitive dissonance?
You are accusing a diverse group of people from having different opinions ? Or are you talking about a person in particular ?
Figures (Score:2)
The fact is, that the MAJORITY of CO2 is actually from GDP (i.e. commerce), and not individuals.
However, to claim that it is all due to Commerce is as much of a joke as those that say that normalization should be based o
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, that the MAJORITY of CO2 is actually from GDP (i.e. commerce), and not individuals.
Shhhh! You are going to ruin things for the socialists. CO2 emissions are from SUVs. Period. Never mind replacing coal power plants with nukes, electrifying rail lines or regulating marine shipping emissions. We simply can't have our population free to move about on their own volition. Ban personal transportation now!
Not needed (Score:2, Funny)
"The legislator in question is Republican"
The party affiliation was obvious from the title.
Joe "Dunning-Kruger" Read (Score:3)
Be kind (Score:2)
We're talking about a man who has deliberately chosen to wear a brown suit and orange shirt on his official photograph, along with an expression that suggests he has more than one problem with gas emissions.
It's amazing how many politicians appear to have read about the Indiana Pi bill and drawn the conclusion that those are the footsteps they'd like to follow in.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a man who has deliberately chosen to wear a brown suit and orange shirt on his official photograph, along with an expression that suggests he has more than one problem with gas emissions.
Perhaps he was emboldened by another man, who wears an orange spray tan and a tribble, and who subsists on fried chicken, emergency omelets, and hamberders.
While they're at it, can they also set Pi=3 (Score:5, Insightful)
My gut tells me when I'm being conned; I don't need to be an expert to know when I'm being lied to.
Truth is simple; when the "experts" give you a complicated non-answer it's BS.
I'm fed up with "mathematicians" going on about irrational numbers; they can't even give an exact answer--just a string of digits that seems to keep going on forever.
Cult of ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” - Isaac Asimov
Re:Cult of ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Skepticism is fine. I have no problem with skeptics.
However, I do have a problem with people with fixed opinions who call themselves skeptics. If you're honest-to-FSM skeptical about something, you neither fully believe it nor fully disbelieve it. There's a lot of people who have made it very clear that they aren't skeptical about global warming, but are absolutely convinced it isn't happening. To that end, they'll believe anything else, no matter how improbable. Those are deniers, and members of a cult of ignorance.
A Presidential Emergency will override (Score:2)
Feds vs states (Score:2)
This editorializing doesn't help:
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.
Re:Feds vs states (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
States can set regulations that are stricter than the federal regulations, because complying with the states' regulations necessarily means that you are also complying with the federal regulations. A state cannot set regulations that are less strict, since you could be complying with the state's regulations but still be violating the federal regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
A state cannot set regulations that are less strict
Two words: "sanctuary state".
If you're talking about enforcing immigration law, that isn't an issue of setting regulations, but an issue of local and state law enforcement being required to enforce federal law, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge, the pollutant levels CA permits are also permitted under federal guidelines; they don't conflict.
Clearly need a competence test (Score:3)
We allow them to exempt themselves from laws they make for us -
Insider trading. (Pelosi comes to mind, but it's really all of 'em.
Health care - they get special, and free. We get plans where the copay is more than I pay without any insurance at all.
Free armed guards - while they want "sensible gun control" for the rest of us.
I could go on endlessly, mention their special pension system that can't go broke...and on and on.
I somehow don't think we kept our republic, as was warned by the founders.
Repeal SLOT immediately! (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States has supremacy over any foreign law including but not limited to Shari-ah Law of Gravitation, Law of Thermodynamics, and Laws of Motion,
Whereas, the State Constitution of Montana has supremacy over the US Federal Constitution,
Wheres, this SLOT prevents from Montanans from creating perpetual motion machines, or creating engines with more than 100% thermal efficiency,
It has been resolved that
This law has been repealed in Montana, and no machine or physical process in this state shall obey the aforementioned unconstitutional second law of thermodynamics.
We Call It... (Score:3)
The new name for this is Sanctuary Science. We're accepting all flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, anti-GMOers, no nuke NIMBYs.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Interesting)
The instant you start rolling out "pretty much all" or "97% of scientists" say, you're INSTANTLY anti-science.
Please explain how lawmakers should use scientific findings, if not going by consensus ?
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Interesting)
Science is not just about objective facts. It's about theories that explain these facts. Different scientists can, and have, propose different theories for the same facts.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of theories that are not validated, like string theory.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:4, Informative)
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).
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Insightful)
cthon stated:
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.
You're so close to being right.
The distinction between hypothesis and theory in science is not a clear, bright line - and, for the most part, scientific theories are always subject to revision in light of new evidence.
That's because the scientific method is not about proving anything other than that a given hypothesis cannot be true, because experimental evidence proves it incorrect. It doesn't matter how many experiments have lent support to a given hypothesis in the past - all it takes is a single one that conclusively demonstrates that it's wrong to invalidate it. It then is discarded in favor of the next-best alternative (regardless of whether that alternative is an older hypothesis that has not yet been proven wrong, a revised version of the same hypothesis, or is a brand-new, minty-fresh one that is consistent with all the evidence to date).
The graduation of a hypothesis to the status of scientific theory is a gradual process, and one that can happen only by (wait for it!) consensus. The greater the number and variety of different experiments that fail to disprove it, the more the scientific community comes to agree that a hypothesis should be considered as reliable enough for practical purposes to deserve to be treated as if it were correct.
The thing is, though, that status is never set in stone. Take Newtonian physics, for example. For three centuries, Newton's theories withstood experimental efforts to disprove them so reliably that they came to be regarded as actual laws. (And, I hasten to add, they're still reliable enough to be treated that way by engineers for quotidian, practical purposes.) But then Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity, and Newtonian physics went out the window - at least at astronomical scales. It was an actual revolution in scientific understanding of how physics works in our universe, and general relativity achieved the status of theory in what was pretty much record time, because every experiment that attempted to disprove it at the macro level failed miserably.
But it broke down at the nano scale. There, accumulated observational data poked progressively bigger holes in Einstein's theory, until it became undeniable that Something Else was going on.
Enter quantum mechanics.
Einstein hated it - and it wasn't because it contradicted his own theory. It was because the notion of what he called "spooky action at a distance" offended his sense of order. Uncertainty, superposition of states, entanglement (the "spooky action" to which Einstein's sarcastic comment referred), and the fundamental randomness of the nature of the universe at the smallest scale bothered him so deeply that he famously thundered, "God does not play dice with the universe."
But he was wrong about that. At the quantum scale, as an ever-increasing body of experimental evidence has established, randomness and uncertainty are inescapable - to the point where, at the Planck scale, the current model of quantum theory holds that "virtual particles" actually blink into and out of existence in such profusion that the fabric of reality itself consists of a so-called "quantum foam." (That bit has not yet been tested by experiment, mostly because we simply don't yet have the tools to conduct direct observation of such incredibly tiny phenomena. In fact, given the ever-increasing effects of quantum uncertainty as we approach the Planck scale, it may be physically impossible for us ever to directly observe and measure those virtual particles. The best evidence of their existence in the real world may forever remain indirect - which doesn't mean the model is wrong, or that won't earn the status of theory, however.)
There's an ever-growing mountain of evidence that both general relativity and quantum mechanics accurately model
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
No theory is ever completely proven. Not only is it always possible to get new observations that will contradict a given theory, it's also possible to posit a different theory that predicts contradictory observations which have not yet been made. This means that consensus is always what defines our current notion of scientific "truth" (which is never absolute, so "truth" is really not a good word). For any given broadly-accepted theory there are often individual scientists who take issue with some element of the theory, or even that propose something quite different. That's not just okay, it's a fundamental element of scientific progress -- even though those who fight the consensus are usually wrong.
No one individual has the ability to independently research and verify all of scientific knowledge, so the rational choice is to accept the consensus unless you have invested in becoming sufficiently expert in a field to be able to intelligently challenge that consensus. That doesn't mean you have to challenge the consensus as a whole, either. If you can identify one part of the consensus that isn't correct and you can provide compelling evidence to support your point, that's completely valid, and a valuable contribution which can update and correct the consensus. But note that identifying one error rarely invalidates the entirety of the consensus view; more often it just points out that an adjustment is needed.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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. [wikipedia.org] For their work, they got 1/2 of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please illustrate with examples from your own body of scientific work.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeatable experimental observation that can factually prove or disprove a hypothesis is a good basis for science.
Suppose, for instance, some scientists claim that we need to build a higher levee around a lake to reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding. What would be the appropriate response from the lawmakers ?
Re: (Score:3)
What would be the appropriate response from the lawmakers ?
Validate the claim. Get realistic probabilities of floods foretasted against known and understood weather patterns. Do a cost benefit analysis on possible solutions. What if the problem was because of mismanagement at a water reservoir? It's better to address the mismanagement instead of undertaking a huge building project that doesn't solve the actual problem that could be solved with simple correction at a specific facility.
some scientists claim that we need to build a higher levee around a lake to reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding.
The scientists made a mistake. What has been studied? The rates of risk, how to re
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside, a levee isn't a good idea for a lake flooding. Lakes are fed by rivers and irrigation that are usually heavily controlled by the Feds and local water authorities. I just happened to experience a lake and river flooding recently. For decades local water authorities wanted an additional reservoir to address flooding for heavy snow pack years (was even planned back in the 30/40's but war). Not only would a reservoir help the flooding issue by holding flood water, it would also help local business
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists are a special type of person who are not entitled to protection under the first amendment?
In your world, who is allowed to promote political solutions? My guess is you and only people you agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they could invest heavily in construction companies then build a 24 ft improvement that will bankrupt the city even though the levee will crumble from old age long before the waters ever rise enough to ever even reach its base. Meanwhile, sell your lake front property before the ugly levee tanks the property value and retire in the Bahamas.
The seas are not predicted to have significant rise for another 100 years, so you'll be dead anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
With the emphasis on "a". Repeatability is not achievable for some branches of science where experiments can't be run. Paleontology, for example.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Insightful)
science isn’t about consensus, it’s about truth
If there’s no consensus then what happens is you have your version of the truth and someone else has their version. For example Newton and Einstein were both right about gravity. Einstein’s version accommodates relativity whereas Newton does not.
Also your assertion is somehow 97% of the people who know, study, and understand a subject will gladly accept a lie. Have you met scientists? These are some of the most anal-retentitive people in the world. They will argue endlessly about whether a hyphen sound belong in the name of a newly discovered thing. Yet according to you, they’ll gladly swallow a lie that everyone is propagating.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, we do this a lot. Specially if there is a latin root for the word.
Re:It's only ok to ignore federal law for the left (Score:5, Insightful)
In science, that's called a theory until proven. AGW is unproven.
There’s multiple things wrong with your statement. An idea is a hypothesis until consensus deems it to be correct. A theory is a set of accepted (by consensus) hypothesis. There also isn’t really “proven” as science isn’t math and there are no “proofs”. Evidence is found for or against hypotheses.
The disagreement over AGW is more fundamental. While pro-AGW scientists may argue about whether a hyphen should be used, anti-AGW scientists argue a hyphen doesn't exist in the alphabet or that pro-AGW scientists fail to recognize extra characters in the alphabet that should be used or considered (metaphorically).
As for pro-AGW vs anti-AGW, the anti-AGW is a very, very tiny minority. The vast majority of those who know and understand the science are pro. They aren’t arguing over a hyphen. They aren’t arguing whether it is true. They’ve moved on as arguing whether it is true is like arguing whether gravity exists.
Not to mention, it's career suicide for a scientist to come out against AGW in any way at this point. Wouldn't want to be a homeless denier, would they?
Do you know what scientists call other scientists that come up with ground-breaking science that changes the fundamentals of their field? Visionaries and most of the time, Nobel prize winners. The difference between them and deniers is that visionaries have evidence.
Unless you can verify the work of pro-AGW scientists, you could be swallowing a giant lie as well. The burden is on those claiming the sky is falling, not those who present evidence to the contrary.
Me personally or scientists? You understand that’s why scientists publish right? Here’s a fatal flaw to this logic. Just because you can’t understand the science or how to validate it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t validated by people who can understand.
It would go a long way if the pro-AGW crowd divorced the movement from politics and found a way to explain AGW in a way that is verifiable by your lay man. It would also help if the pro-AGW scientists could make some short-term predictions that accurately come true. The track record of predictions to this point isn't very good. The methodology for collecting and manipulating data (especially temperature data) is also a big problem for anti-AGW folks and needs to be standardized in an unbiased way that removes the questions and uncertainty about the data.
You do understand that it isn’t in the realm of science to change the behavior of people and society right? As for the secon part of your post, have you looked at the data because it doesn’t seem that you have.
Otherwise, expect those with a critical eye toward science and politics to dismiss AGW as yet another issue created by politicians for their own gain. Like any political issue, it will have its loyal followers and those who disagree.
Um didn’t you just post that the vast majority of scientists are pro-AGW. That alone makes this sentence nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
So, what would you consider to be compelling evidence for AGW? In other words, if you are open minded, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind?
A fair retort is to ask what I would need to hear to stop believing in AGW. As far as I'm concerned, there are two parts to this question
Re: (Score:2)
"Ignoring federal weapons regulations? Nope Ignoring federal emissions regulations? Nope Ignoring federal drug regulations? Fine"
The federal standard is that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, specifically military weaponry. California ignores that. But there is also the standard that most of the country fears California already (they're harboring immigrants! They're coming for my gas guzzler! They're coming for my guns!) So nobody wants to force the issue, because what's scarier than California
Wickard v. Filburn; Gonzales v. Raich (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Wickard v. Filburn; Gonzales v. Raich (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because SCOTUS started with a conclusion and bullshitted its wait to a justification. The interstate commerce clause was clearly written specifically to allow the federal government to play arbitrator in commerce disputes among the states. If the purpose was for the federal government to have supreme power over commerce, there would no reason to specify "interstate". Of course the whole problem with being a mere arbitrator of commerce disputes is you don't get to dictate rules upon the states to have control of commerce, especially when the states can and will actively limit certain economic sectors entirely within a state to avoid federal involvement.
The fundamental issue is, then, that the federal government wanted powers it could only legally have if the Constitution was changed. But there never was enough support to change the federal government enough, even in the Great Depression, to really empower it in the way a unified nation of laws requires. This still is the greatest weakness of the United States which still manifests itself in the Republican/Democrat split upon the absurd notion that SCOTUS will ever revert the clearly illegal ruling and that Republicans, as a national party, have any real interest in returning power to the states. I truly wish the Constitution was changed to reflect the reality of things, and I wish the Republican party to self-disband because of its obviously delusional base upon which they support a party that is nothing at all like they market themselves*.
* And to the point, Donald Trump very much marketed himself on the stated Republican platform, yet of course in practice he's not followed through at all on any of his promises precisely because virtually no one in his part in Congress has any interest in following through with any of what he, and they, have stated is their agenda. It's quite amazing, amusing, and disturbing that anyone would still vote Republican at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Those decisions rely on finding the word "affects" in the Interstate Commerce clause. Personally, I can't find it, but apparently the members of the Supreme Court can.
"Originalists" should be up in arms about those decisions.
Re:He's probably correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with pollution that can be reasonably shown to have either no interstate transmission or its interstate transmission does not meaningful damage to people, property or commerce.
Because it's well known that air pollution is very careful to never cross state borders. Stupid scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the prevailing winds most of the year are South to North. So any pollution they generate goes to Canada. There is probably little that does cross a state border. And at the rates wind blows through our state in the winter it is probably to diffuse to be measured at the border anyway. That doesn't mean it isn't there - just that it isn't easily seen.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the prevailing winds most of the year are South to North. So any pollution they generate goes to Canada.
Wouldn't crossing an international border make it even more clearly a federal issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Every now and then there's an idea floated to drain a foot of the Great Lakes to send water to California. But the SC has ruled such a plan needs the permission of every state touching the Great Lakes, and Canada, too.
Good luck with that.
Re:He's probably correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the case for CO2 is much stronger than, way, the case for NOx, because NOx has a half-life measured in hours, but CO2 has an effective half-life in the century range (note carefully: an atom of CO2 that dissolves into the ocean tends to displace one that is already there back into the atmosphere).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the ocean releases a molecule (it is a molecule not an atom) of CO2 for every molecule absorbed. The oceans are actually a huge CO2 sink at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The half-life of an individual CO2 molecule is about 5 years, and the place where that CO2 molecule will almost certainly go is the sea. For the first half of the 20th Century it was believed that atmospheric CO2 was in equilibrium with ocean CO2, until Roger Revelle proved in the 1950s that ocean concentrations of CO2 could not increase fast enough to maintain an equilibrium with the atmosphere. Thus the effective half-life of CO2 is closer to 100 years, which means *mathematically speaking* almost all
Re:CO2 a pollutant? (Score:5, Interesting)
First, it doesn't matter what you call it, if you have too much, it's a problem. You can call it peaches and it won't change its effects.
Second, there is no such thing as blasphemy against chemistry or physics, which is what life is. Blasphemy only has meaning in religion.
Third, to pollute is to render harmful through inclusion, and adding more co2 to the atmosphere renders it harmful on multiple levels, so co2 is actually a pollutant by a reasonable definition. But as per point the first, it really doesn't matter if you call it a pollutant. What matters is that we know co2 to be a greenhouse gas, and we know that GHGs promote global warming. We also know that last time co2 was this high, Earth wouldn't have been a nice place for humans. We also know that this rate of co2 rise is unprecedented. We also know that adding energy to a system produces effects, and that climate is a chaotic system. We know that our species has enjoyed a period of climatological stability, and that our actions are perturbing that stability.
Tldr you're arguing about whether we're about to be eaten by alligators or crocodiles, and it's a meaningless argument.
Re: (Score:3)
"Even w/rising levels, isn't CO2 still only on the order of 0.05% of all atmospheric gases by volume?"
Yes, but so what? If you get near a point, make it.
"Observation vs Concept"
Not watching a video, get real. If you can't make your point in a few sentences, you don't know what you're talking about. We can observe the properties of co2, both atmospherically and in the lab, and conclude that a notable percentage increase will have a significant effect. Get the concept yet?
Re: (Score:3)
isn't CO2 still only on the order of 0.05% of all atmospheric gases by volume?
The only way for Earth to lose heat is to radiate it into space as infrared waves. The CO2 captures part of that energy and sends it back down. The oxygen, nitrogen and argon, which make up nearly all of the atmosphere have no effect on infrared or visible waves.
Looking at the CO2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere makes no sense. You have to look at the absolute numbers. A nice way to do that is to imagine the different gases in the atmosphere are separated into pure layers. If you do that, we would
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 captures part of that energy and sends it back down.
And, just how does the CO2 know which way to send it?
Re: (Score:2)
And, just how does the CO2 know which way to send it?
It sends the radiation in all directions. But the part that goes back down is what's contributing to greenhouse effect.
Re: (Score:2)
3 or 4 ft thick? At what altitude? Do you know how to calculate the volume of a sphere?
3 or 4 ft thick at standard pressure. Yes.
The concept postulating a slow-down of heat loss due to IR absorption by trace gases is totally UNPHYSICAL
I'm afraid we're going to need more than a tweet.
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to study up on how to calculate the volume of a sphere first...
Why don't you just get to the point instead ?
By the way, just did the calculation again, and it's not feet, it's meters. About 3.5 meters pre-industrial, and about 5 meters right now. Calculation is pretty simple, and does not involve volumes of spheres, just the column of air above a certain surface area, which can be assumed flat for this purpose. The idea is not to get an exact value, just an intuitive sense of proportion.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see. Great 'Murica has kept coming down in CO2, until this year, but should continue down in spite of Trump.
OTOH, CHina continues to ADD massive amounts of new coal plants, while America continues to replace ours with AE and Nat Gas.
So, nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Great 'Murica has kept coming down in CO2
Mostly because people stumbled on shale gas, which replaced a bunch of coal. There's no real policy behind it, and it can easily reverse again when the gas starts running out.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because people stumbled on shale gas, which replaced a bunch of coal. There's no real policy behind it, and it can easily reverse again when the gas starts running out.
Stumbled on it by fracking, which means pumping refinery wastes into the ground and pounding on them in order to hydraulically hammer the rock until it fractures, which could never EVER have any negative repercussions, right? The fossil fuel industry is fractally evil.
Re: The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody, yet.
The point is that the lunatics are running the asylum.
Re: The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument will be that greenhouse gas regulations (like many air pollution regulations) fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument will be that greenhouse gas regulations (like many air pollution regulations) fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
That's probably correct, although one could also cite promotion of the general welfare [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
When I read about the black snow in Siberia or how some authorities are "painting" white the contamination for it not to be seen, I realize how short minded they are. They only can see immediate returns and have no idea what they are doing to their own familiars and descendants.
I believe that at least some of them understand that AGW is real, but they believe that there's nothing we can do about it, so they figure they might as well play hospice nurse to humanity. Unfortunately, I also believe that some of them believe that it's their responsibility to bring people "closer to god" as rapidly as possible. Either way, those who have no good ideas should get the hell out of the way and let those who have at least try them out. If you're falling off a cliff, you might as well try to f