You’re about to travel through another dimension, a dimension not of logic and reason, but of political influence and deep pockets. Your are journeying into a land where up is down, and more pollution is less pollution. If you could read that signpost through the smog, you would know you’ve entered the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Twilight Zone

In the past two days, there have been three major reports concerning the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) that makes me wonder what kind of wacky weed these guys must be smoking.

First, there were two yesterday concerning Alabama’s air quality. In the first, we learn of the State of Alabama’s proposal to codify ADEM’s illegal practice of allowing the largest air polluters in Alabama to exceed the maximum limits set by the US Clean Air Act.

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has been seeking federal approval for the rule change since 2003, when ADEM’s Environmental Management Commission adjusted the existing smokestack law at the behest of major air polluters in the state, including the power, paper, chemical and cement industries.

The rule change that’s mentioned is one in which ADEM routinely allows some large polluters in the state to exceed the limit of soot they discharge into our air by an average of 2%. In 2005, the ADEM practice was ruled illegal in federal court, although ADEM and other State entities have been in negotiations with the EPA to allow the practice (which is actually still occurring). Interestingly, ADEM is selling this proposal as an effort to improve air quality, and Alabama Governor Bob Riley is in a buying mood:

Riley’s office argued that the new rule change “ensures that air quality (in the state) will continue to improve.” The governor’s e-mails also state, “we are not asking for a relaxation of air quality regulations. In fact, Alabama has proposed more stringent standards for our state.”

Dear Mr. Governor, allowing more pollution isn’t actually more stringent. You see, pollution is generally bad, so any standards that allow more of it would actually be less stringent. I know the whole more/more thing has a cool syntactic symmetry, but sometimes you have to leverage the actual meanings of words to make your arguments less insane.

When you think about how ADEM and the Governor’s office could claim that allowing more pollution into Alabama’s air would improve Alabama’s air quality, you have to ask yourself just what would motivate seemingly bright and intelligent people to act so stupidly. It turns out that there’s a clue:

… the rule change the judge objected to came about because the state’s biggest power providers – including Alabama Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority – and other industrial polluters asked for it.

Oh, right. If big polluters ask for it, it must be a good thing.

In the second report yesterday, we learned about ADEM’s failed attempt from the 1990′s to block the use of electronic pollution monitoring equipment, in favor of using trained monkeys to spot excess soot emitted from smokestacks. OK, trained monkeys may be a bit over the top, but given that ADEM wants to use “trained smoke readers” instead of more reliable and precise monitoring instruments, the metaphor is completely appropriate.

The report points out that critics of this Monkey’s Eyeball method makes it impossible to effectively monitor and enforce federal clean air standards. The EPA, for it’s part, would rather have something called “credible evidence” of whether a company was complying with clean air limits. ADEM, however, would prefer the Monkey’s Eyeballs to modern measuring instruments, because they think it would be impossible to requiring polluters to meet clean air standards.

And finally, there was a report today about how ADEM testing over the past year show high levels of mercury contamination in some species of fish. Mercury contamination has been linked to several birth defects and developmental disabilities, and the ADEM is pointing out that this is a particularly good year to avoid eating largemouth bass caught in south Alabama. Of course, what is missing from the report is the fact that the largest source of mercury contamination in lakes and streams is industrial air pollution that eventually falls as contaminated rainwater, pollution that is commonly emitted from coal-fired power plants like the ones that ADEM is OK with emitting more soot.

So – there you have it – the perfect storm that is the ADEM twilight zone: ADEM wants us to believe that more pollution will give us better air quality. They also want us to believe that trained monkeys are capable of monitoring soot emissions as well as automated instruments. And finally, they want us to make sure we don’t eat the contaminated fish.

Herein lies the critical flaw of science when studying the creation of our world. Science cannot observe and therefore cannot test the creation, nor can scientists examine any of the so-called “Big Bang” scenarios. These singular events are far beyond any application of the scientific method. Since they happen but once, they can never be reproduced or observed by any scientist.

Observation and reproduction of studies and experiments are essential to the scientific method. Therefore, because the creation and associated theories cannot be observed or tested, responsible scientists will avoid aggressive assaults upon that which they cannot test by present methodology.

[emphasis added]

Again, this writer is probably well-meaning, and most likely educated. But as in previous instances, this is another great example of why we absolutely must improve science education – not only in Alabama, but throughout the US.

In this instance, the writer’s argument suffers from two fatal errors. First, he conflates Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with cosmology, and in particular “Big Bang” theories in Physics. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever concerning the origin of the universe. Instead, it’s simply a coherent, tested, and testable biological theory about how species change and adapt over time. For nearly 150 years, it has been the unifying theory of biology, and while biology and physics are indeed both sciences, Evolution only has cosmological importance if it violates your religious comfort zone. Scientifically Evolution and Cosmology are apples and oranges.

The second fatal flaw in the writer’s argument is the misunderstanding of the notion of historical sciences. Different sciences can be placed on a continuum ranging from experimental sciences to historical sciences. Physics is largely an experimental science, as is chemistry and psychology, and these would sit near the “experimental end of the continuum. Toward the far end, we have sciences that are largely historical in nature, such as paleontology and astronomy. Within the philosophy of science, it’s well understood that many sciences have aspects that are experimental and those that are historical. In all these cases, however, the methods and rigor used by all scientists, even those who use mathematical models and known physical properties of the universe to describe the conditions at one ten-billionth of a second after the Big Bang, are valid scientific methods.

One thing I find interesting is that creationists would resort to an ineffectual tactic like this in the first place. To illustrate what I mean, I’ll first present the failed bill, and then I’ll point out why it’s both unnecessary, and couldn’t possibly help creationists get what they want, which is more talk about religion and less talk about evolution in science classes.

First, you can read the contents of the bill here.

Now, the critique:

1. In section 2, there is a claim that “existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.” This is false. In fact, the ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard states:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Which means – if you have a scientific critique of a theory, you can teach it if doing so enhances the effectiveness of scientific instruction. Simple and effective – teachers are allowed to teach science in Alabama schools.

2. In section 3 the bill states that every teacher in the State of Alabama, “shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.”

This is actually unnecessary since every teacher in the State of Alabama already enjoys this right. In fact, this right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Regardless, there’s no harm in providing special rights for teachers, right?

3. Section 5 is the kicker. It states, “Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.”

This would be a get out of jail free card for every student for anything they want. If a student held a view that the earth was flat you would be breaking the law if you lowered his geography grade below an A+. If a student firmly believed that earth didn’t exist until they were born, you couldn’t attach a grade to that opinion if it came up on a test. In our educational system there is no metric for understanding that doesn’t require demonstration of that understanding. If you claim that dogs and cats are the same species, you’re wrong and clearly haven’t demonstrated your understanding of mammalian speciation. It’s a teacher’s duty to require demonstrations of understanding from their students, and if they have penalties for errors and mistakes in thinking, that’s part of the process.

4. Section 7 is also interesting, it says, “the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.”

Since there is no empirical science or observation of the natural world that supports any metaphysical or religious claim, this section alone makes it impossible for intelligent design proponents and other creationists to increase the exposure of their views in Alabama classrooms. In other words, if you hold a view that has metaphysical or religious implications, you’re out of luck – because science can’t help you support your view.

That last part made me think a bit. Why would creationists push for an education bill that would ultimately forbid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design? Here’s why: Most people, including the bill’s sponsor Rusty Glover, don’t understand science enough to use it effectively.

More on that later.

The Alabama House of Representatives approved a bill on Tuesday that would allow the sale of “Gourmet Beers” that contain higher levels of alcohol than currently allowed by law. A group of beer enthusiasts calling themselves Free the Hops lobbied for the change, saying that without such a law, Alabamians would only be allowed to buy cheap, tasteless beers in the state.

Under the new bill, which passed by a slim margin of 48-42 in the House, beers with an alcohol content up to 13.9% could be legally sold in Alabama. Supporters of the bill say that such beers are sold in most states, and that making such beers available in Alabama would be good for state tourism. Opponents claim that the bill would kill Alabama’s children:

“We are killing our young people,” Rep. Richard Laird, D-Roanoke, said.

Arguments like this completely miss the point. Critics suggest that kids will “find a way” to drink the more expensive beers if they’re available, all the while ignoring the fact that kids don’t need beer to escape their pathetic, angst-ridden lives anyway. Instead of worrying about underage drinkers beer preferences, our lawmakers should try to remedy the social forces that drive children to drink in the first place, while improving enforcement of existing laws against underage drinking.

Beer drinking is not only legal in all 50 states, it’s a celebrated part of our culture as well as a booming industry. Underage drinking is already illegal, so increasing the menu of beers that the underaged cannot choose from shouldn’t have a large impact on underage drinking rates. Instead, providing good beer in Alabama improves the choices available to law-abiding patriotic beer drinkers throughout Alabama.

You know who you are, representative Laird.

“That’s all well and good”, the folks down Mobile, AL said, “but we have another name for this February 5th. We call it, Fat Tuesday.”

For the uninitiated, Fat Tuesday is Mardi Gras day. The final day of in a three-week jag of true Bacchanalia, parades, balls, floats, beads, and sometimes more than a modest amount of drunken debauchery.

Yup – election day is on Mardi Gras day, and there may be some contention for people’s time and attention.

So when faced with a potential collision between political responsibility and an excuse to ditch work and catch some moon pies or strings of colored beads hurled by half-naked maskers standing on gaudy meandering floats with the force of an American League starting pitcher, you can probably guess what the unanimous solution would be.

That’s right, they moved election day again.

So, unlike the rest of the State of Alabama, Mobile and Baldwin counties in the very southern parts of the state held their Super Tuesday primaries last Wednesday, which was another parade day, but certainly nothing like Fat Tuesday (nor Joe Cain day, for that matter). So we did our civic duty, we went out and voted, and we thought all was well.

But it wasn’t – because nobody bothered to inform campaigns and the legions manning their calling centers. Nope – they have been very busy, calling several times daily – during dinner, in the afternoon when nobody is going to answer them, vainly hawking this or that candidate.

It’s no use telling them that they’re wasting their money – their hard fought campaign warchests. We already voted. Now, it’s just a matter of getting to the next parade.