US Chamber of Commerce calls for ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ on climate change 19

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Sean Casten Posted 3:31 pm
   25 Aug 2009

   I think you're missing the point Brad.  After all, isn't there a more fundamental question here?Namely, why must we limit our quest for court-adjucidated truth in science only be limited to a few sexy theories?  Is not the greater harm done by those billions of other theories that people act on every day without judicial review? Should we allow oil companies drill holes in places where their theories tell them they might find oil without first putting that theory on the stand?  And what about the Chamber of Commerce?  Has anyone ever tested their economic theories?  It gets worse: I'm told by people in the know that there is - brace yourself - an entire discipline of "Theoretical Physics" that has tens of thousands of theories, not one of which has ever seen the light of a court room (no doubt due to all their fat cat lobbyists).  How long can we let this madness continue?  We shall... no, strike that.  We must overcome!

   Permalink

2. 

   neosapiens Posted 8:20 pm
   25 Aug 2009

   It's actually rather clever for the delayer/denier camp to try to take advantage of the alienation of the rather large minority of the public who have traditional values and who have a jaundiced view of science.   Our failure to communicate respectfully (and effectively) with millions of Americans who happen to have viewpoints we might not embrace is a weakness in the presentation of the environmental and scientific message.  It really doesn't help to persuade people to listen if you put them on the defensive by ridiculing their views.If such a trial were ever held, it would be good to turn the question to: Can we afford to ignore the obvious and escalating signs of environmental trouble?   A reasonable person examining the evidence would find in favor of action.

   Permalink

   1. 

      ElliotH Posted 10:46 am
      26 Aug 2009

      There are perhaps 10s of millions of Americans who will simply continue to believe the right-wing rants around climate chaos, health care and other "reforms".  The US Chamber, American Petroleum Institute and other powerfully entrenched business as usual voices will do whatever it takes, spend unlimited money to keep the current economic paradigm going as long as they can.  Maximization of short term profits for the narrow financial interests of a few, at all costs, is their game.  Remember - Exxon made $1 billion in PROFITS every 9 days in 2008,  that's one company.  Their ilk will lie, cheat and infuse corrupt information into the media and there are enough people who choose to believe this garbage to prevent "real change" from happening. Until the 10s of millions of us who are willing to look at reality, to look at the science and economics from a worldview that seeks to improve the quality of life for our children and all people and life, and build a real movement of new voices of business, new voices of masses of people, and willing to invest serious money and work into such an effort, we may as well kiss it good-bye.  The business as usual folks are not going away, they are strategic, willing to invest big money, and they own the public policy making apparatus in America.  Yes, they own our Congress and government.  Health care for the people, anyone?  When will we decide to get real?  Elliot Hoffman

      Permalink

3. 

   Tyler Durden Posted 12:09 am
   26 Aug 2009

   We should put religion on trial.  That would not stand the light of day.It is ridiculous and harmful to continue to give deniers of the truth a voice.  The vast majority of climate scientists agree that 1) global warming (or whatever you want to call it) is happening and 2) that it's caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly by burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, and by cutting down forests that would absorb those gases.  When one side in a disagreement has no credibility, there's no reason to lend credibility to it by giving it a voice in a debate or trial.
   

   Permalink

4. 

   joelbolden Posted 4:45 am
   26 Aug 2009

   As far as I know, our actions are exacerbating a natural cyle of the planet that has ocurred before. An article I read a couple of years ago, can't recall the author, pointed out that there is absolutely no need for us to have ice, snow and polar caps; that the earth has it's cycles(which ignore humans) and each cycle of warming is followed by a return to cooling,i.e glacial age.  Don't know if that's totally accurate, but has  a certain sense to it.  That doesn't mean that we should give up on polluting our atmosphere, since we may be increasing the affects/severity of such a cycle to an extremely dangerous point.

   Permalink

5. 

   OMG Posted 12:57 pm
   26 Aug 2009

   I would like to see the jury selection process for this one.  Probably the best jurors money can buy.

   Permalink

6. 

   georgiact Posted 4:44 pm
   26 Aug 2009

   Tyler,Your argument -"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that 1) global warming (or whatever you want to call it) is happening and 2) that it's caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly by burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, and by cutting down forests that would absorb those gases."has absolutely no weight until you can actually list the names and disciplines of these so-called scientists.  So far, the only such lists are filled with what you call deniers.  You might be right regarding bureaucrats and politicians, but not physical scientists.  Until you get some data, your claim is meaningless and thus your argument as well.

   Permalink

   1. 

      Tyler Durden Posted 10:00 pm
      26 Aug 2009

      OK, how about the United Nations' top scientist?  How about top NASA scientist James Hanson?  I'll assume you're not a denier with an agenda, so I'll just say this:  I have no time to research a list of climate scientists for you on an issue that's well beyond decided and that I don't even consider a top priority.  Suffice to say that regardless of what the harmful effects are, you cannot get away from the fact that all actions have equal and opposite reactions, meaning that emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases will have a major effect on the Earth, even if we didn't know what that effect would be.

      Permalink

7. 

   josullivan58 Posted 5:18 pm
   26 Aug 2009

   A trial to find scientific facts? Since when are courtroom trials the way we conduct science?The term res judicata is the legal term that describes a situation where a suit is thrown out because the courts have already made a final desicion. If you've lost its too bad because its over. Someone needs to tell the delayers and the denialists its over.  

   Permalink

8. 

   GreeningTX Posted 5:58 pm
   26 Aug 2009

   The Chamber seems to have several objectives: (1) drag the Christian right into full-scale opposition to climate protection legislation by equating climate science with the biological science that the right already finds abhorrent; (2) create a pretext for derailing the legislative process; (3) give the climate denialist position an infusion of political credibility by creating a show trial in which denialist perspectives are treated on par with mainstream scientific perspectives; (4) give the denialists a prominent, seemingly objective platform for using crackpot interpretations to demand further years of delay in pursuit of ever-more-highly-refined levels of ever-elusive scientific certainty on an ever-expanding list of particulars; and (5) when/if mainstraim climate science "wins" the case, give the denialists a basis for demonstrating that the entire governmental/scientific establishment is unwilling to be objective.

   Permalink

9. 

   georgiact Posted 7:49 pm
   27 Aug 2009

   Tyler,Okay - so now you're up to, say. 50 scientists.  Sounds like a consensus to me.  Over 31,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 PhDs signed a petition stating that restricting CO2 emissions would hurt the environment and human welfare. http://petitionproject.org/Over 700 international scientists disssent over AGW claims. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9You should read some of the comments fromt these scientists, many of which participated in the IPCC process.  Here are two quotes.Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was in charge of South Africa’s Chamber of Mines’ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd has served as President of the South African Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Federation of Societies of Professional Engineers, and the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of Southern Africa. Lloyd, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town. Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded. Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:  "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process." "you cannot get away from the fact that all actions have equal and opposite reactions, meaning that emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases will have a major effect on the Earth,Huh!  Which law are you referencing?  Are you referring to the over 300 experiments showing that when 300ppm of CO2 is added to the ambient air, trees, fruits, vegetables and grain crops all significantly increase their yield?

   Permalink

10. 

    neosapiens Posted 8:16 pm
    27 Aug 2009

    GeorgiaCT:  It's always possible to find a few dissenters: that's the nature of scientific inquiry.  If you need a more credible reference for the scientific consensus, it's not hard to find.  For example, on January 20th of this year, MSNBC carried a report on a survey of earth scientists containing these remarks:  ·  "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen...?" Ninety percent said yes.  ·  "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Eighty-two percent said yes.  Among sub-groups, 97 percent of climatologists active in research agreed that humans play a role. "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," the researchers stated in summarizing their findings in the journal EOS. 

    Permalink

    1. 

       flyfisherman Posted 6:22 am
       28 Aug 2009

       Ok, I agree we play some role.   I do not agree we are in danger of having Greenland break apart and slip into the sea or other imminent dangers.   We have plenty of time to have an adult debate and get past the political yada yada yada and do what needs to be done.   The only rush is by those who would like to control more of our lives.

       Permalink

11. 

    georgiact Posted 6:05 am
    28 Aug 2009

    Well Neosapiens,No need to question AGW anymore.  MSMBC took a poll of earth scientists.  Game over!  Why have I spent so much time researching climate research when I could haev just referred to a poll.  I guess they didn't include a poll showing only 17% of meteorologists support the AGW theory.  SCIENCE is not conducted by polls or by CONSENSUS for that matter.  Did you actually take some time to read what some of the 700 internationsl scientists actually said!  Did you look at their credentials and the work they have been and are engaged in? I doubt it, because you don't seem open to any data or opinion other than what supports your view.  Sounds a bit like some religious fanatics I know.Here's the link again should you get a sudden dose of sourage to do some investigating on your own: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

    Permalink

12. 

    neosapiens Posted 9:11 am
    28 Aug 2009

    The point of the survey is that the people who really study climate for a living--and are truly qualified to speak on the subject--almost unanimously agree.  The more you actually, really know about global warming, the more dire your conclusions about the situation.There are really only a few reasons for wanting to delay action:  financial gain, political agenda, and the desire to cling to views that are dissonant with reality.Consequences like the melting of Greenland are already in motion. The idea that we can dither and argue until what we decide no longer matters is a fatal mistake.  Choosing delay is choosing inaction and choosing delay takes away all of our options for minimizing the damage.  Choosing delay means that you don't care how many people have to die on the altar of your political ideals.   And, ironically, choosing delay dooms us to far greater loss of political freedoms and economic opportunities than prudent and swift action.  Not wanting reality to be what it is doesn't change the facts or the consequences.

    Permalink

13. 

    flyfisherman Posted 9:48 am
    28 Aug 2009

    Let's talk about Greenland melting and slipping wholesale into the sea and causing a rise of 20 feet in sea level in this century.   Much of that thought comes from one NASA scientist, James Hanson. Well I hope the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC ok to cite as a better reference.  Is that ok with you, Mr. Durden?   Or do you have some other source you like? Well the IPCC in that report expects a rise of about 2 inches this century in sea level from ice melting in Greenland.  Hardly the end of Manhattan as we know it. By the by,  I am still waiting Oh Oracle Durden for you to enlighten me of the proper path for me to rise to the hallowed ranks of Venerated Environmentalist.tight lines, 

    Permalink

14. 

    Charles Pyott Posted 11:59 am
    28 Aug 2009

    It's hilarious to envision the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- usually so traditionalist and, if anything, more anti-scientific and/or selectively scientific than anything else -- suddenly advocating a rigorous and transparent debate of this kind.This planet would certainly be a better place if the USCC pushed EQUALLY passionately for similarly rigorous scientific debates about the many OTHER potentially critical environmental issues of our time. (And -- most importantly -- agreed to act according to the results, hmm?...)Warming-induced climate change is only ONE area of serious real/potential deleterious human influence. Taken from recent headlines, the following phenomena exemplify the kinds of issues which ALSO desperately need to be explored, assessed, and satisfactorily addressed (and the list grows daily) -- even taking other climate change-related issues off the table altogether:- Environmental Pollution Increases Risk of Liver Disease
    - Urban Air Pollution Shortens Life
    - 40% of North American Freshwater Fish in Peril
    - New Study Shows Extent Of Harmful Human Influences On Global Ecosystems
    - Study: Contaminant Levels High in U.S. Parks
    - Higher Pollution Risk for Blacks and Poor
    - Increasing Soil Erosion Threatens World’s Food Supply
    - Global Ecosystems "Face Collapse"
    - Chemical Pollution "Harms Children's Brains"
    - Planet Enters "Ecological Debt"
    - More Than Half of US Streams Polluted
    - Air Pollution May Increase Risk Of Appendicitis
    - Surface-Level Ozone Pollution Set To Reduce Tree Growth 10% By 2100
    - Air Pollution Too High Near Some US Schools
    - Environmental Pollution Increases Risk Of Liver Disease, Study Finds
    - Children's IQ Can Be Affected By Mother's Exposure To Urban Air Pollutants, Study Suggests
    - Human Exposure To Controversial Chemical BPA May Be Greater Than Dose Considered Safe
    - Industrial Air Pollution Worse Than Vehicle Exhaust For Breathing Problems In Children[Granted, not everything about the modern industrial/agri-industrial age is, in fact, harmful:- First Evidence That Weed Killers Improve Nutritional Value Of A Key Food Crop
    - Plants Absorb More Carbon Dioxide Under Polluted Hazy SkieAnd some of the most interesting aspects of all current environmental debates are the surprises, like:- Buying Local Isn't Always Better For The Environment
    - Too Many Trees Planted In Central Strip Of Roads Can Be Worse Than None; Can Trap Vehicle Exhaust Fumes]

    Permalink

15. 

    jb21uk Posted 10:19 pm
    29 Aug 2009

    GeorgiaCT, I so enjoyed your posts I registered specially to respond.First you ask for lists of scientists and data, then 50 scientists doesn't represent enough of a consensus, and present your petition (which is essentially a poll without random sampling). When presented with a peer-reviewed survey, you ridicule the relevance of a poll and of consensus.I looked at the petitionproject website. The criteria for submission is an undergraduate degree in a science and engineering subject. 33,000 really does sound like a lot, until you see that in 2005 466,000 american science and engineering undergraduate degrees were awarded. Of the 33,000 on the petition, 10,000 are engineers, as against 39 climatologists. If you add up all the directly relevant disciplines you get to about 600 signatories, and most of those have only undergraduate degrees! That is laughable.

    Permalink

16. 

    AnnanAmos Posted 4:31 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    A scopes trial over climate change is a dandy idea. Even though teh Scopes trial basically amounted to the ACLU (not that I diminish the importance of the organization) pushing their agenda through an unfortunate fall guy (Scopes) that lost his job over the affair.  (Whice he did, and I think he ended up penniless as a result - way to go, ACLU!)  That said, it certainly did wonders by showing that the creationist argument had very little in the way of scientific weight, but a very plausible theory backed up with evidence was better than just saying an invisible man that lives in the clouds said "Whoomp - there it is!" 6,000 years ago. Regardless, the level of C02 that's been released into our atmosphere cannot be good.  In fact, the high levels of C02 in the atmosphere of Venus (I got this from Wikipedia) created a profound Greenhouse effect on that planet and consequently, hardly any sunlight makes it to the surface.  (Here, sunlight is  kind of important - plants need it to live!) Hopefully, the CAFE Standards will at least be a good step in that direction.  We only have one planet, after all, and quite frankly if an environmental policy that is opposed to the economic interests of a very rich few is directly opposed to the long term interests of teh whole, then it should be obvious that the long term health interests of both our species and our planet should be winning every time. If this means that soccer moms (who are already annoying enough as it is) don't get to drive Suburbans (usually poorly, I might add) then boo hoo.  If it means we stop using coal as a primary energy source, I'm alright with that too.  Nuclear is a far better method. Perhaps a new Scopes Trial is the way to start bringing about some good change for our planet.

    Permalink