> There's an entire discipline regarding how and when science switches paradigms, to borrow a Kuhnian word.

Thing that has nothing to do with this bill

> I think the best guard against any of this is the old Feynman test.

And this has nothing to do with this bill.

Theory of Evolution and Climate change has been explained sufficiently in laymen terms to be comprehended by anyone.

What this bill does is trying to negate the science without having anything to do if it has been tested or explained in simple terms

Sorry, I was playing a bit of devil's advocate, or at the very least the pragmatist. This bill is terrible, I agree with you. But I think we have to be careful when we declare the scientific method as the end all be all of knowledge. I would argue that at this point climate change is NOT explainable to a layperson, or else we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm almost as afraid of people who aggressively want to sequester carbon, as those who propose we do nothing.

My point about paradigms is that science moves in demonstrable paradigms and it is very, very difficult (if not impossible) for an entrenched scientist to move beyond the paradigm in which they work.

The best guard against this is limited lifespans.

I'll also throw in there that if we had a Feynman-esque way of explaining evolution to high school students, we wouldn't be in this mess, but it turns out gene expression and the development of photo-sensitive skin is actually very difficult to comprehend completely.

But the mess is almost exclusively in the US.

How do you explain it?

Because of the rise of Christian fundamentalism in this country. Many of the most ardent supporters of the movement here are ex-pats from Australia, so I'd wager either they've all come here, or some shenanigans are up in Australia too but they don't get global press coverage.