Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

The Sciences

Montana Legislator Seeks to Repeal Physics (Unless it Benefits the State)

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Via Peter Gleick, I come across this amazing story. Joe Read, a state legislator in Montana, has introduced a bill entitled ""AN ACT STATING MONTANA'S POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE." Here's the text:

Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming. (1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana's natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming. (2) The legislature finds: (a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana; (b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and (c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it. (3) (a) For the purposes of this section, "global warming" relates to an increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface. (b) It does not include a one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide.

So, as far as I'm concerned, this law would essentially repeal physics, because there is simply no doubt that carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere have an impact, and this is due to their basic radiative properties. Gleick agrees. But drill down a bit, and the legislation becomes kind of interesting. Despite its incoherence, Read's bill does suggest at points an awareness that carbon dioxide can be involved in climate change--but then offers this weird idea that "reasonable" amounts of carbon dioxide don't matter, it's only "a one time, catastrophic release" that matters. Maybe it depends on what you mean by a "one time, catastrophic release." From the perspective of the planet, the last 200 years are just the tiniest flicker in time. And there has been a catastrophic release.

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 75%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In