U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming

[KingBall]

The business lobby, hoping to fend off potentially sweeping emission limits, wants the EPA to hold a 'Scopes'-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.

Reporting from Washington - The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."

Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.

The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."

In the coming weeks, the EPA is set to formally declare that the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for climate change endanger human health, and are thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The so-called endangerment finding will be a cornerstone of the Obama administration's plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.

The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."

Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced.

"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems."

Critics of the finding say it's far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

 

[Pandora]

I think that is a great idea and should have been done a long time ago. AlGore and Co. should have to show his proof and answer the hard questions instead of just screaming he is right.

 

[samsara15]

I think it is a good idea and will put an end to the Conservative Luddite's poltically motivated criticism of sound science and enable us to move foward on what we can do to contain Global Warming.

 

[Pandora]

I think it is a good idea and will put an end to the Conservative Luddite's poltically motivated criticism of sound science and enable us to move foward on what we can do to contain Global Warming.

I think you are right. So far we have just been told, and by people that a whole lot of us have no respect for.

Then people like Ted Turner go on tv and say if we dont change soon we will become canibals, he backs it up with nothing but we have to take it seriously because its against the rules to question global warming.

If there is a REAL debate and global warming wins then more people would be up for the sacrifice we are told we must make.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree. Go to trial!

 

[foggedinn]

The Chamber of Commerce being the one petitioning the courts, the burden would be on them to prove that global warming is bad science, not the advocates of man made global warming to prove that it is good science.

In assuming a burden to prove a negative, they would be setting an impossible task for themselves. All in all, not to bright.

Of course, as much money as the C of C donates to court races, perhaps they can get a Judge to turn the law upside down and place the burden on the ones they are bringing this action against.

 

[Pandora]

The Chamber of Commerce being the one petitioning the courts, the burden would be on them to prove that global warming is bad science, not the advocates of man made global warming to prove that it is good science.

In assuming a burden to prove a negative, they would be setting an impossible task for themselves. All in all, not to bright.

Of course, as much money as the C of C donates to court races, perhaps they can get a Judge to turn the law upside down and place the burden on the ones they are bringing this action against.

Something this big that effects us all and never had been debated should just be debated and no one should have to "make" it happen. But this is better than sitting back and doing nothing because a few nuts say we have to turn our lives around.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Chamber of Commerce being the one petitioning the courts, the burden would be on them to prove that global warming is bad science, not the advocates of man made global warming to prove that it is good science.

In assuming a burden to prove a negative, they would be setting an impossible task for themselves. All in all, not to bright.

Of course, as much money as the C of C donates to court races, perhaps they can get a Judge to turn the law upside down and place the burden on the ones they are bringing this action against.

The MMGW crowd is attempting to deprive us of our liberty, property and infringe on our pursuit of happiness without so much as the due process required of them by our constitution. The onus would be on the MMGW crowd to prove that 1. GW is MM and not natural and 2. their proposed actions would have results significant enough to be acceptable in terms of a cost/benefit ratio.

The MMGW crowd cannot prove either with actual facts. The other planets are warming along with earth (which has been cooling for a decade), yet mankind does not live on these other planets... That's an inconvenient truth.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Something this big that effects us all and never had been debated should just be debated and no one should have to "make" it happen. But this is better than sitting back and doing nothing because a few nuts say we have to turn our lives around.

It's not often that the National Academy of Sciences is refered to as a "few nuts" especially when they are backed up by their counterparts in the next 13largest countries in the world. Postulating a conspiracy of this magnitude makes the UFO conspiracy pale by comparison.

The best part about this idea is that it will enrich one of the most poverty stricken sectors of the US economy: the lawyers. With the endless appeals we should be able to drag this argument out for 20 years at least, by which time the court decision will probably be moot.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The MMGW crowd is attempting to deprive us of our liberty, property and infringe on our pursuit of happiness without so much as the due process required of them by our constitution. The onus would be on the MMGW crowd to prove that 1. GW is MM and not natural and 2. their proposed actions would have results significant enough to be acceptable in terms of a cost/benefit ratio.

The MMGW crowd cannot prove either with actual facts. The other planets are warming along with earth (which has been cooling for a decade), yet mankind does not live on these other planets... That's an inconvenient truth.

I like you, GenSen, even though I don't agree with you entirely most of the time. But the one thing more than any other that troubles me about you is your adherence to the bottom line, the cost/benefit ratio. I'm not sure in my own mind that weighing everything in that balance is the best way to run the world. There is no benefit to mentally deficient children unless we can use them in medical experiments as was done in Florida at one time. That kind of mindset is what led to the use of prisoners in damaging radiation experiments at Hanford and led the US Heath Service to recruit illiterate black people for a study on syphilis in which they were promised an experimental treatment, but in reality they were given no treatment at all. The Health Service simply followed them and recorded what happened as they died of the effects of syphilis (illiterate blacks with syphilis provided a positive cost/benefit ratio until word got out about what was done and the US taxpayers had to cough up millions in reparations to the families of the victims).

I guess measuring everything by cost/benefit is what capitalism does, but is it right? I'm not as sure as you often seem to be.

 

[Pandora]

It's not often that the National Academy of Sciences is refered to as a "few nuts" especially when they are backed up by their counterparts in the next 13largest countries in the world. Postulating a conspiracy of this magnitude makes the UFO conspiracy pale by comparison.

The best part about this idea is that it will enrich one of the most poverty stricken sectors of the US economy: the lawyers. With the endless appeals we should be able to drag this argument out for 20 years at least, by which time the court decision will probably be moot.

There are a number of scientists who have come out against it and were instantly targeted as bad crazy loons. If its so obvious that there is global warming why attack the scientists who come out against it, why not reason with them and show them how wrong they are instead of attack them, get them fired, threaten them exc...


When I think of nuts, mostly I picture AlGore and Ted Turner.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are a number of scientists who have come out against it and were instantly targeted as bad crazy loons. If its so obvious that there is global warming why attack the scientists who come out against it, why not reason with them and show them how wrong they are instead of attack them, get them fired, threaten them exc...


When I think of nuts, mostly I picture AlGore and Ted Turner.

I don't know who targeted those scientists, do you? Was it the National Academy of Sciences? The fact that somebody has alledgedly attacked the scientists you refer to has not been documented that I know of. When, where, who, and how were they attacked? Was anyone arrested? Was it just character assassination or did they get fired? Did they file wrongful dismissal suits? I hear a lot of wild accusations floating around on both sides, but the hard evidence seems difficult to find.

One of the things I have noted is that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has been cited as having a list of thousands of scientists who say global warming is a hoax. The OISM is in Cave Junction, Oregon and their list is just a bunch of names. They claim to have so many Phd's and so many Master's level signers, but all they have are just a bunch of names in a long list. I could compile a list like that from any big city telephone list in a couple of days.


Why did George Bush threaten his own scientists, withhold their work, and eventually acknowledge that global warming was a real threat--surely you're not suggesting that George was in on the conspiracy, are you?

 

[Pandora]

I don't know who targeted those scientists, do you? Was it the National Academy of Sciences? The fact that somebody has alledgedly attacked the scientists you refer to has not been documented that I know of. When, where, who, and how were they attacked? Was anyone arrested? Was it just character assassination or did they get fired? Did they file wrongful dismissal suits? I hear a lot of wild accusations floating around on both sides, but the hard evidence seems difficult to find.


Why did George Bush threaten his own scientists, withhold their work, and eventually acknowledge that global warming was a real threat--surely you're not suggesting that George was in on the conspiracy, are you?

Well first I dont think it was a conspiracy and second I have not heard about President Bush threatening any scientists over global warming, do you have a news report about it?

I do not think it was the National Academy of Sciences as a group but individuals within the science community openly attacked those who broke from lock step support of global warming. Men who were published and considered good were now idiots and morons or have lost their edge, gone crazy exc. It was about two months ago I was reading about this, I can try and find something on it if you would like. Also there was a paper written by scientists showing the flaws in the global warming argument that was surpressed by this white house. Or should I say attempted to be surpressed.

All I am saying is that we have been told without any public debate We have global warming period. and we decided this is how we are going to fix it, by over taxing us exc.

A debate with people who know the issue would be nice. I like that idea better than having it forced down our throats without any real conversations

 

[Dr.Who]

There is no benefit to mentally deficient children unless we can use them in medical experiments as was done in Florida at one time.

The benefit of mentally deficient children is the same as the benefit of all children - the people who care about them love them and they contribute to society by nature of the fact that they allow us to show our compassion.

That kind of mindset is what led to the use of prisoners in damaging radiation experiments at Hanford

I don't know anything about that. This is the moment when in responding to this post I noticed that it was from you. Had it been from someone else I might have gone on to research it. But you have a history of making mountains out of valleys.

and led the US Heath Service to recruit illiterate black people for a study on syphilis in which they were promised an experimental treatment, but in reality they were given no treatment at all. The Health Service simply followed them and recorded what happened as they died of the effects of syphilis (illiterate blacks with syphilis provided a positive cost/benefit ratio until word got out about what was done and the US taxpayers had to cough up millions in reparations to the families of the victims).

I would point out that the action was the result of a black university applying for a grant and themselves designing the study and executing it. the actions of one university are not an indictment of the whole capitalist system. In fact, the outcry against it is an affirmation of the capitalist system.

I guess measuring everything by cost/benefit is what capitalism does, but is it right? I'm not as sure as you often seem to be.

When it comes to a cost/benefit analysis I am sure that Gen meant for it to include more than just money. After all the question of whether or not the earth would cease to be able to sustain life would have to be addressed and that is not necessarily a monetary factor.

Capitalism is as moral as the people who are participating in it (that's all of us). The last time I checked there were still millions and millions of businesspeople who conduct themselves as upright citizens while at work. In contrast, socialism, communism, monarchy, fascism, and other tyrannies are only as moral as the few elite who run them and there have been numerous examples of these governments that failed to bear any resemblance to a moral regime. Capitalism is the worst form of government there is except for all the others.

 

[Stalin]

From the same people who have generously given you destruction of the world's forests, raging worldwide fires and toxic waste ad nauseum.

No thanks.

A complete waste of time and money.

Comrade Stalin of Gori