Silly North Cackalackey!

Silly North Cackalackey!

Joined: May 7th, 2002, 12:38 pm

May 31st, 2012, 6:22 pm #1

From Grist online Magazine. This kills me!


North Carolina tries to outlaw sea-level rise

By Jess Zimmerman

North Carolina is no stranger to the if you dislike it then you should have made a law against it model of legislation, but this is extreme: The state General Assemblys Replacement House Bill 819 would rule that scientists are not allowed to accurately predict sea-level rise. By all legal calculations, the sea level will now rise eight inches by the end of the century. Sure, so far models have predicted an increase of more than three feet, but if they keep that shit up, theyre going to JAIL.

OK, theres not really a prison sentence attached to this proposed rule, but that doesnt stop it from being crazeballs. See, actual sea-level rise is nonlinear, because theres feedback the warmer it gets, the more the water volume expands, and the more stuff melts, and the more it expands, etc. Thats how most scientific models arrive at their predictions, because that is how physics works. But an increase that big is extremely inconvenient for a state with a beach-based tourist trade. So North Carolinas solution is simple: Change how physics works, or at least change how people do physics.

Accordingly, this bill mandates that models use a linear increase a consistent amount of change every year, based on historical data. This will lead to predictions that are much less catastrophic, and much more reassuring for people building resorts in the Outer Banks. The predictions will also be flat-out wrong, but thats nothing new for North Carolina.

If its not obvious why this is stupid, look at it this way: In 1790, the year North Carolina is stuck in, the population was about 400,000. In 1900, it was 1.9 million. Thats an increase of 1.5 million in 110 years so if there were an analogous rule for population, the state would prepare for 3.4 million residents in 2010. Which might cause some strife among the 9.7 million people who live there now, but you know, whatever the law is the law, so screw you, math. If the 6.3 million people unaccounted for by the legal model wanted housing and services, they should have fallen in line with North Carolina reality.

Anyway, we wish North Carolina the best of luck in staving off disaster by legislating what mathematical calculations people can perform. It will probably be about as effective as fixing the health-care crisis through etymology, or balancing the budget with entry-level yoga. But if it works, Im moving to North Carolina, where living in a fantasy world has the force of law.

---
If only energy consumption and water usage would follow these laws too! We could fix everything! With LAWZ, y'all!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 25th, 2002, 12:00 am

May 31st, 2012, 6:26 pm #2

heh. Crazeballs!




Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 12th, 2004, 6:43 am

May 31st, 2012, 6:28 pm #3

The power of positive thinking!

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 5th, 2003, 5:14 am

May 31st, 2012, 6:49 pm #4

So what?

The mayor of New York just outlawed Big Gulps!

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 12th, 2002, 8:14 pm

May 31st, 2012, 6:56 pm #5

Not quite yet: Proposing a ban.

Aren't there better ways to focus on the obesity epidemic? Hell, if they ban 16oz sugar-laden drinks and I want me some sugar, I'll just buy 2 x 8oz. I'm all for healthy eating and drinking, but this move just strikes me as a waste of time.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 7th, 2002, 12:38 pm

May 31st, 2012, 7:49 pm #6

You're denying the math of 'super-sizing' VB.

It totally contributes to increase consumption. The fact is, you'd buy the 8oz, and be sated so you wouldn't mindlessly drink the extra 12 ounces simply because they were there, and you wouldn't passivly consume an extra 150% of the calories either.

Many, many studies have proven that people eat what is in front of them. This has value.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 12th, 2002, 8:14 pm

May 31st, 2012, 7:56 pm #7

Maybe, but BANNING them? Really? (They're proposing Coffee enormo-size goes on the bannination list, too.)

Oh, and I've seen quite a few people (myself included) eat MORE by employing "they're only small portions in front of me, so I can have several" argument. Flawed logic, but used to "justify" having my fill, of say, "100-calorie" per pack cookies. AWESOME. Just one more packet! I'm good
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 5th, 2003, 5:14 am

May 31st, 2012, 8:26 pm #8

I don't care if 7-11 wants to sell Mountain Dew in 5-gallon barrels, the government has no business saying they can't.

It is a ridiculously slippery slope when politicians get it into their little brains that it is their job to mandate responsible life choices for the people.

Besides I thought they said obesity was going to go away once they stopped McDonald's and Burger King from offering Super-Sizes? Oh, that's right, the only thing that changed is now I have to order 2 Value Meals instead.

No matter how many laws you make, fat people are still going to find ways to be fat.

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 12th, 2002, 8:14 pm

May 31st, 2012, 8:35 pm #9

Just reading some more on this proposal: Apparently calorie-laden milkshakes of the large size would be exempt, and, according to the NY Daily News, "Cups bigger than 16 ounces would disappear from self-serve fountains in fast-food joints, ALTHOUGH REFILLS WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED." (My emphasis)

Yeah. That makes sense.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 7th, 2002, 12:38 pm

May 31st, 2012, 8:36 pm #10

I don't care if 7-11 wants to sell Mountain Dew in 5-gallon barrels, the government has no business saying they can't.

It is a ridiculously slippery slope when politicians get it into their little brains that it is their job to mandate responsible life choices for the people.

Besides I thought they said obesity was going to go away once they stopped McDonald's and Burger King from offering Super-Sizes? Oh, that's right, the only thing that changed is now I have to order 2 Value Meals instead.

No matter how many laws you make, fat people are still going to find ways to be fat.

.
You know, pretty much all of the research in the Childhood Obesity arena refutes what you are saying Hep.

Absent regulation of what we're feeding our kids (read: absent LAWS to stop greedy corporate bastards from feeding our kids shit) we've had the largest increases in childhood obesity, childhood diabetes, and every other scary measure you can imagine.

Children get around 40% of their daily caloric intake from school lunches. Because there are no regulations, most school lunches currently fail USDA guidelines for caloric, sodium and fat intake.

Studies demonstrate that sugary drinks are aggressively marketed to children. Three normal servings of sugary drinks are like eating an additional meal a day in calories.

There is no law requiring PE in schools, yet studies demonstrate that exercise habits learned in childhood carry forward in life. The argument for reducing PE programs is that schools need more time to focus on math and reading scores - when in fact a little PE has been proven to INCREASE student academic performance.

You can basically predict a person's BMI with their zip code - which is the grossest inequality I've heard in years.

There is a role for government in heathy behavior of its citizens - particularly citizens who are minors, and whose parents are overwhelmed by the forces of capitalism who are waging sophisticated marketing campaigns promoting the absolute worst possible foods for them to eat.

This is a question of national health, not corporate freedom to ruin it.
Quote
Like
Share