If Montana State Rep. Jeff Read gets his way, Montana will have an official position on global warming — the state likes it and wants more.

Read has taken the position that global warming is beneficial to Montana and then rattles off some unscientific assumptions about carbon dioxide and its effect on climate.

Read’s bill, HB 59, is titled “An Act Stating Montana’s Position on Global Warming.”

Jeff Read

Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming. (1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

(2) The legislature finds:

(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and

(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.

(3) (a) For the purposes of this section, “global warming” relates to an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s surface.

(b) It does not include a one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide.

Probably no one is going to argue with Read that global warming may work out well for Montana, except for the warmer locales that will become deserts and the parts of the world along the coasts that will be flooded. However, if its trading partners are having problems, this is not apt to work out so well for Montana’s economy .

Read then makes the statement that “reasonable” amounts of carbon dioxide will not have an impact on the climate. He has that right, but the bar for reasonable appears to have been crossed long ago.

Then he claims that global warming is a natural occurrence. So it is. The world has gone through cold and hot cycles for eons. Nevertheless, most climatologists will disagree with Read that human activity has had no role to play.

Then Read ends with the suggestion that a “one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide” could affect the climate.

Isn’t that what has been going on for the last 150 years? Maybe Read thinks that 150 years is too long for a “one-time” event, but 150 years in the history of the earth is a blink of the eye.

With all the benefits that Read sees coming to Montana with global warming, I am surprised he isn’t asking for that “one-time, catastrophic release.”

Of course, he doesn’t define what is “reasonable” and “catastrophic.” I presume that is to be determined later after Montana officially declares, “Global Warming? Bring it on!”