Excerpts from The LA Times story:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming
By Jim Tankersley
August 25, 2009
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.”
…
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.”
…
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.”
Read the complete LA Times story here
Website of the US Chamber of Commerce here
READER POLL
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m all for this. However, some things need to happen first and these are complete access to all data, code, correspondence, etc. from the AGW camps. How can we find issues and prove our points if organizations such as HadCRUT are keeping data private?
Chamber officials say it would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century”
I’m thinking more like flat earth versus spherical earth.
That would be interesting.
OT, but I have to share…
I am on an email list Michael Mann has been active on lately. Thunderbird thinks Mann’s emails are junk. So, being nice, I clicked “Not Junk”. Immediately, Thunderbird went to “Thunderbird think this might be an [email] scam”.
Guess there is no convincing Thunderbird that the works of Mann are not either junk or a scam.
I like Thunderbird.
A key piece of evidence should be the findings of E.M.Smith as displayed on his chiefio.wordpress.com blog: The March of the Thermometers. It appears that the warming was fictitious, and mainly due to adding thermometers from hot places.
MattN (03:26:59) :
The average Joe has already figure out that AGW is out to blow smoke up the public’s tailpipe in a concerted effort to play monopoly.
That being said, the business community in the US is watching in horror as the Beaurocrats are ready to sell them down the river to foreign interests.
Getting a public hearing is fine, but the business community of the US needs to mount it’s own Media Blitz to get the public totally alarmed over the real threat: selling the US to the lowest bidder. Now, that is something worth getting steamed over.
I think it’s safe to say that the businessmen members of the Chamber of Commerce have many good lawyers. The EPA would have a very difficult time with a trial against them.
Add to that the possibility of people like Lindzen, Monckton, Christy, Spencer, Happer, and Watts giving testimony, it really can’t see a chance for the EPA winning.
Beyond that, if the EPA has witnesses like James Hansen, and Stephen Schneider… well, you get the idea.
Ying vs.Yang, Saturn vs.Uranus, light vs.darkness, quite a conflict!
Another quote from the story is, “…science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.” Um, no they didn’t. They lost. John Scopes was found guilty of violating state law, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Long after he left the teaching business, a legal technicality showed an error in the dollar amount he was fined. Doesn’t the LA times have enough money for fact-checking?
We should have the trial. That may be the only way to have an open public debate.
Union of Concerned Scientists (AKA the most far left, loonie anti-nuclear power, group which ever existed!)…
Back in the 1980’s Opinion Journal, which publishes the results of many academic pollsters, had a survey on Nuclear Power. They sent out 3000 surveys to 3000 people randomly selected from the “Who’s Who of American Men and Women of Science”. People listed in this book tend to be published researchers, department heads of engineering/science departments, heads of industry research departments, etc. They got 1800 surveys returned. Aside from the 87% favorable rating for nuclear power, they did throw in this question, “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’?” They got ONE affirmative.
From this they said, “Statistically we believe that no more than 50 of the 150,000 listed in the “Who’s Who of Science” would be members of the UCS.
The UCS claims a membership of 50,000.
They have steadfastly REFUSED to supply ANYONE a listing of their members or even a “sanitized” list of (alledged) credentials.
But the MEDIA has beatified them! (As they do the National Resources Defense Council, another ADVOCACY GROUP with NO formal standing..)
It is therefor FUNNY to see them being quoted as a “source” to defend the EPA. (Which, despite my frequent dissagreements with their work…both on technical and political basis, does HAVE an official standing in the “world” and the “USA”.)
Maybe we could get Kim Il Jung to have a say defending the EPA???
Hugoson
It is just a matter of debating AGW in the public areana, a case like this would last for months, the general public would here all the facts and make their own mind up.
This is one public hearing the agwers do not want at any price. Gavin Schmidt has already had a tast and got his fingers burnt, he did not like it.
Bring the trial on.
Global Warming Debate
It’s a really bad idea. How did the Scopes Monkey Trial go? Why did the SCOTUS allow the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant in the first place? How did all the witch trials end? Not well for the accused and those trials only ended when the governor put a stop to them. The system is run by lawyers who are trained not in the scientific method but in the LEGAL method. That method specifically excludes facts that are “not relevant” to the line of argument. The scientific method on the other hand excludes lines of argument that do not conform to the observations/facts. You do see the difference? The Courts DON’T.
I voted yes, because a trial in Federal Court, if it were to get there, would flush out the “hidden” data and codes, not to mention the politically motivated e-mails, etc. This would happen both in discovery and at trial. The fact that, thus far, data and codes have been “hidden” will look very bad on its face in front of a jury. “We erased all those e-mails” will not work either in Federal Court.
Although I’m not a lawyer, I’m pretty sure, based on my own experience in a Federal Court science trial, that this would become real-time public data. In other words, everyone on here, and others, could lend their own particular expertise(s) and assist the formal expert witnesses in analyzing the new data/codes, real time, prior to their testimony.
It would be a massacre.
The law suit and trial are an absolute necessity. I have read all the caveats up to this time, and I agree with most of them. Unfortunately, we need maximum transparency re the hoax and scam before Copenhagen. Look at how one of my senators Diane Feinstein, and her husband Richard Blum are up to their eyeballs in the cap-and-trade boondoggle. She works the government and he works the “capital (free) markets”.
Take ’em out by any and all efforts at transparency.
Imagine if Gavin Schmidt were the decider on who testifies and what they are allowed to say.
If he used his approach to blog debate the trial would not allow the chamber to pick it’s own witnesses or testimony.
I had another cogent comment disapprear at RC the other day.
The parade of one sided remarks over there is a lesson in the worst of the worst of corrupted discussion.
It’s gotten so bad I am weaning myself from the annoyance of visiting there.
Typical. Government agencies commenting that trials or investigations into their nefarious mechinations are “a waste of time.” Well, lately there are a few folks starting to get their ire up. I feel more hopeful than ever that there may finally be some pushback. Finally.
Personally, I feel the entire district of D.C. needs a firehose taken to it. Flush that cesspit out completely. Give it back to the States and the People.
Bill:
Thanks for your very long posting. In return I would just like you to settle down with:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/pdfs/malaria_and_DDT_story_IEA.pdf
DDT is nothing like dieldrin.
However, did the judge weighing up all the scientific evidence, after a 3 month hearing, decide against a DDT ban?
Did the EPA under the adminstration of Ruckelshaus go ahead and ban DDT anyway?
We’re not going to agree on anything else which would be off topic anyhow.
Well, you have the good, the bad and the ugly possibilities.
The good would be that the mainstream media (MSM) would have to report on the story as it unfolds.
The bad would be that the usual biases of the MSM would distort the facts.
The ugly would be that Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Markey and Henry Waxman would be appointed as a panel of Chief Justices.
Bob
The assumption here is that the courts would rule in accordance with the scienctific data. In short that since the data to date strongly suggests no sign of catastrophic anthropogenic change that the courts would rulle that way. I think this assumption is wildly over optimistic.
I seem to remember that this scenario was the backstory of Crichton’s book, STATE OF FEAR.
Personally I think putting the science of AGW on trial is a good thing. Just THINK what people will say when it becomes public how the handling of climate data by GISS, Hadley, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann etc.. comes out. Also, since ONLY FACTS would be allowed… A trial would cut out the entire propaganda machine. I can just see it now:
*on the witness stand*
Al Gore- “This is what Florida would look like after 20 feet of sea level rise…”
Lawyer- “Excuse me Mr. Gore… Could you please name for me even one single scientific study, paper or article that says this scenario will happen?”
Al Gore- “uhhh, well… we’re talking about over thousands of years here.. umm, I mean…”
Lawyer- “Mr Gore, the scenario you just showed us DOESN’T say over thousands of years, it implies a very quick rise in sea level.”
Al Gore- “Yeah, well… sometimes because of the importance of this issue we need to overemphasize the degree of effect, offer up scary scenarios.. you know… to make people listen.”
Lawyer- “I see. In other words, you are LYING to the public about the actual effects of Climate Change in an effort to SCARE them into listening to you. Thank you that is all.”
Al Gore- “But wait!!… It’s not like that! I mean, it is, but it’s not…”
Judge- “The wittness is excused. Take a seat Mr Gore.”
Doc
The reason the skeptic side would prevail is because it comes from a place of sensibility, reason, and a natural curiousity: scientific.
The otherside comes from a place of insecurity, fear, and monetary gain: political.
Pierre Gosselin (03:15:49) :
Climate change is not proof of AGW.
Climate change is always occurring. The EPA has to prove that its manmade. This is impossible with the data available today.
NO!!! Do NOT make the case any easier than it has to be! They need to prove it’s a PROBLEM. They’ve been screaming about a tipping point but have not made a scientific case that global warming will accelerate. All the feedback mechanisms they cite are already active and reflected in the current trends. If the globe simply continues warming at the current long-term rate, everything will be fine (if not even better). The Arctic will have less sea ice (eventually — this year they got screwed). Shipping will be enhanced. New resources will be tapped.
But for a small enough epsilon, they can show that man’s contribution to global warming is greater than epsilon. Do you really want to place your bet on that criterion?
They have to prove that global warming will accelerate enough to become a problem. Otherwise, they lose. That’s a slam dunk; everything else isn’t.
Sandy (06:24:25) :
Hmm Dalai Lama might be a universally respected judge?
Sandy, that could be true but I think he is embedded in the UN community which makes him an uncontrolled projectile on the subject of AGW/Climate Change.
Nearly 20 years ago I attended a (green) criminal trial in Federal Court. One major contention was the amount of water on a particular area and the resulting overflow.
At one point an ‘expert’ witness was asked how many acre feet of water fell on the land in question assumingvarious variables.
I happened to be seated next to an old engineer. About the time the ‘expert witness’ (an EPA guy) said he would need a calculator to produce the answer, the old engineer leaned over and whispered to me, “About nnn acre feet.)
Meanwhile, on the stand, after a lot of key strokes, our ‘expert’ allowed that the calculator didn’t have enough significant digits to produce an answer. (It is a good thing he wasn’t around in the slide rule era!)
Earlier, another government ‘expert witness’ confused the SI prefixes, maybe milli and micro, and the judge and lawyers didn’t even notice.
I was beside myself, but in the end the judge ruled for the defendant.
Because of this experience, I do not believe courtrooms are the place to judge science.
Boris (06:55:09) :
I would be all for this if it would shut you guys up. But when you lost, you’d just move on to other tactics.
HAHA, you people are a riot. Your pseudoscientific AGW/CC mythology wouldn’t stand a chance, but keep dreaming. The EPA knows they’d lose, and that’s why they refuse to do it.
Oh, and it’s hilarious that the CoC VP is saying it would be evolutionism vs creationism. Does he not know he’s the creationist in that equation?
AGW/CC is if nothing else, a belief system. It is non-falsifiable, so by definition isn’t science. It most certainly is not interested in facts, or the truth, in fact, quite the opposite (witness the hockey stick, and other fabrications). Hilarious indeed.