New North Carolina Law BANS Scientific Predictions of Sea Level Rise.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Don't worry folks. Inks told me that Republicans aren't anti-science at all, that's just liberal crap. 

I never said no Republicans were.

And to be fair, the law doesn't ban the predictions from being made.  It bans those predictions from being used to guide state policies anytime in the next 4 years, having the state rely on  climatological data while the CRC finishes their report.

The story also uses an old version of the bill, while the end bill was more moderate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to know. Maybe in the next election they should use this slogan: "Republicans: not as bad as the Inquisition".

This is nothing close to the Inquisition.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My state of California should do this. I say that they should redefine Earthquakes as "Jesus hugs". And then they can get rid of all that job killing regulation that deny job creators the freedom to chose any building materials they want. 

Nobody's redefining anything.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My state of California should do this. I say that they should redefine Earthquakes as "Jesus hugs". And then they can get rid of all that job killing regulation that deny job creators the freedom to chose any building materials they want. 

Nobody's redefining anything.

Well I suppose they're redefining the basis for policy-making - elminating the use of science as a part of this process is an interesting step.

1. From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong here), but this doesn't actual change the basis for policy-making.  The status quo seems to already be to use climatoligical data.  The bill seems more of a preemptive step.

2. How is using climatological data eliminating the use of science?  Climatology is science...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

2. How is using climatological data eliminating the use of science?  Climatology is science...

Perhaps they've chosen certain aspects of science with which they agree and disallowed other aspects with which they disagree politically.

That may be the case with some people (although that'd mean they wouldn't even continue the study), but that's not what you said.  You said they were "eliminating the use of science" as part of the state's process.  And that's 100% false.