Would love to. Send me the bill and links/sources to commentary. m
The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens.
Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker. There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses.
Click the below to access the interactive data.
Counting (all the crimes) is impossible. The Justice Department spent two years trying in the 1980s, but produced only an estimate: 3,000 federal criminal offenses.
What’s really interesting about these laws is that, unlike the states, the Federal Government doesn’t have to show criminal intent. If you’re digging up arrowheads with your son as a hobby, for example, you could go to jail for up to 2 years for violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The government doesn’t have to show that you had the intent to steal the arrowheads, you’re just guilty period (oppose that to, say, robbing a bank where your intent, while obvious, still has to be shown in local courts).
Fields notes, that the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 “doesn’t require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.”
What do you think?
The answer will surprise you. (Note I’ve enabled answers, please leave your comments. I’d like to hear from you on this one.) Yale E360 asked 8 renowned climate scientists if the current weather extremes can be traced to anthropogenic climate change. The majority (7-1) gave the qualified answer of “no, but…”.
While they agreed that extremes are occurring, they pointed out that variability is part of the natural processes of climate. There will be mega heat waves, mega snow storms, and mega typhoons irrespective of how much carbon is pumped into the atmosphere. Thus, the fact that climate is already quite unpredictable needs to carry more weight in models that include GHGs.
Most surprising, at least to me, is that the scientists recognized that human population is skewing the data in ways that make “climate change” a policy emergency. More people are moving to areas that are vulnerable to disasters. We’re moving to the coasts, building bigger homes and infrastructure, and generally concentrating in areas that are vulnerable to disasters.
Scientists in both camps said two physical phenomena — warmer air holds more moisture, and higher temperatures exacerbate naturally occurring heat waves — would almost by definition mean more extremes. But some argued that the growing human toll from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and heat waves is primarily related to burgeoning human population and the related degradation of the environment.
Judith Curry, Chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, had what I think is the best answer of the group. Curry responded to the question with a straight forwardness that I appreciate. That climate models are weak, that advocates may be making mistakes by pointing to current events for political gain, and that the IPCC’s data is too oversimplified to make reasonable decisions.
The substantial interest in attributing extreme weather events to global warming seems rooted in the perceived need for some sort of a disaster to drive public opinion and the political process in the direction of taking action on climate change. However, attempts to attribute individual extreme weather events, or collections of extreme weather events, may be fundamentally ill-posed in the context of the complex climate system, which is characterized by spatiotemporal chaos. There are substantial difficulties and problems associated with attributing changes in the average climate to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing, which I have argued are oversimplified by the IPCC assessments. Attribution of extreme weather events is further complicated by their dependence on weather regimes and internal multi-decadal oscillations that are simulated poorly by climate models.
I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing.
More field data over longer periods of time are needed in order to make statistically significant correlations between isolated weather events, and anthropogenic change. The answers they give are quite instructive. And I would ask climate advocates to give it a read and consider their opinion about changing policy is soundly informed. What do you think?
Source: Yale E360