Consider a macroscopic canister filled with a classical gas (comprised of elastic molecules bouncing around and obeying Newton's laws). Suppose that at some time I gave you the positions and velocities of every single molecule in said gas to within one part in 10^-20. Though you might be able to predict the positions and velocities of every molecule for a short period of time, you would find that your prediction diverges exponentially from the true result, even though the error was initially tiny and you understood all of the dynamics in the system. Such sensitivity to initial conditions is the essence of chaos theory. Weather is a chaotic system, and you can only predict it a few days out without requiring exponentially more resources (i.e., sensors and computing power).

So, does this mean that all of fluid dynamics is bunk? What about pV = NkT? After all, if it's impossible to predict the future behavior of the gas molecules, how can we say anything about the gas? The reason you can make statements about pressure, volume, etc. is that these are bulk quantities, described by global constraint equations (e.g., conservation of energy, conservation of particle number, etc.). Climate, too, is a bulk quantity governed by global constraint equations, especially conservation of energy. Casting doubt on macroscopic climatology simply because it is impossible to make "microscopic" predictions shows a profound lack of understanding of physics.

The lack of new nuclear power plants has little to do with environmentalists. Nuclear plants are a huge long-term investment—tens of billions of dollars—and the payback period is decades away. If long-term market prices change in an unfavorable way, you're screwed. For example, solar power has been following its own version of Moore's Law for some time now, so why on Earth would you build a nuclear plant if there's a good chance it will be eclipsed by the sun in twenty years? They used to make economic sense, but haven't since the 80s when oil prices plummeted. Since then, essentially the only actors willing to make the investment have been governments.

Congratulations, you tripped my bullshit alarm in the first ten words of your post. "The founders" were not a homogeneous wise group, and the Constitution is itself a series of compromises between many people with different viewpoints. Moreover, rampant use of the filibuster is a recent phenomenon spurred by a Senate rule change in the 1970s. Prior to that, it was used maybe once or twice a year, and simple majorities were required to pass most legislation.

No offense, but you sound like someone who get all their history from Glenn Beck.

With regards to basic science, pretty much. Don't worry, though: it's not unique to the U.S., and is the standard around the world. It's simply a reflection of the fact that private companies will not fund research that has no potential for profit in the next five years. A hundred and fifty years ago, only nobles could afford to do science because they could afford to fund their own research. Public funding really changed the game. In fact, the most prominent historical exception, Bell Labs, is the exception that proves the rule. It was able to insulate its scientists from profitability concerns because AT&T had such a strong monopoly, and was essentially quasi-governmental. When the monopoly went away, its star faded.

The system's also something of an artifact of the way in which scientists are trained. To do meaningful research, you have to get a Ph.D. and spend years slogging through grad school. Professors have no way of funding their own research and rely on grants to support their students. Grad school isn't like med school or law school, where the eventual earning potential is high enough to justify taking out massive loans.

There is not a single Democrat in Congress who has ever advocated the forced censorship or abolition of "hate speech." Where did you get this notion? (I see this sentiment a lot on Slashdot, but have never seen a shred of evidence other than the fact that they tend to be more politically correct.)

I am extremely skeptical of the anti-radiation alarmists, but don't dismiss the possibility of non-ionizing radiation doing damage out of hand. After all, microwaves are also non-ionizing.

It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.

Printing on paper is not the same as printing on plastic. Look at both under a microscope: paper looks like a pillowy fibrous material, while plastic still looks flat.

Besides, have you seen how the Senate operates these days? After one year in office, Obama hasn't even finished making low-level appointments because certain Republicans senators decided to put a blanket hold on all of his nominations.

Nothing passes the Senate anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, that rarely happens. Sometimes, last-minute amendments are added to already-long bills, and so the opposition party says, "This x-page bill was voted on less than a day after it was introduced!" In truth, the vast majority of the legislation has usually been debated for months.