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’ve been in court with a government agency, the U.S. Patent Office, and Roger, correct me if these won’t apply:
1. Any corporation with even a remote interest in green infrastructure (GE ?) will file a friend of the court brief, leading to internal bickering with the U.S. C of C and big bucks being applied against the C of C, significantly lengthening the trial.
2. The release of “secret” information will be a huge issue and will be litigated before we even get to the data phase.
3. The lawsuit would be argued for years.
However, I voted yes. Any organization with the stature of the Chamber contradicting the “consensus” would be excellent. It would also act as a venue for realists to protest outside the courthouse, and as a galvanizing agent for denialists to rally around. Would it be covered by the MSM? Who knows. I would give money to the C of C if they filed it.
Even if this fails, I do not think this will be the last attempt. I for one, am already prepared to sue if the climate bill passes the senate. Although, I don’t believe I will need to do this myself, as the Cap’N Trade bill clearly violates constitutional law on may levels and will be challenged by several large organizations, just as the health care bill will be challenged as well.
I don’t believe the EPA ruling will be affective anyway. I believe any restrictions imposed by the EPA will simply be ignored, and when enforcement is threatened, they will be challenged by many. The EPA will never be able to get anywhere with trying to control CO2, there are too many industries to deal with that will put up a huge fight. There is also way too much money at stake and too many people that will not give up that money quietly.
The EPA has simply bitten off more than it can possibly chew, no matter what court trials transpire, no matter what regulations are mandated. They simply will not be able to enforce.
I think this is a terrible idea. Science isn’t about “consensus”, and it’s even less about what some judge thinks of the weight and quality of the evidence presented on both sides of a scientific issue. If the pro-AGW side “wins”, the MSM will hail it as a great victory for Truth, a decicive repudiation of the unbelievers. The science will not only be “settled” scientifically, but legally too.
If the anti-AGW side “wins”, the ruling will be denounced as biased or ignorant by the MSM, and pro-AGW scientists will declare such a ruling has no bearing on the actual science (and they’ll be correct!).
I think it would be far better to go after the Supreme Court ruling which allowed the EPA to “regulate” CO2 emissions in the first place. The idea that a trace gas vital to all life on earth should be categorized as a “pollutant” is ridiculous, and if the Congress didn’t have that particular “covering fire” from the USSC, I doubt they’d have the guts to give the EPA the rights to regulate CO2.
CO2 has quickly become EPA’s toxic loan. They should jump at the chance for a Judge to “bail them out” by ruling against them.
I’ve read the above comments and I find the discussion very interesting. I’m not a lawyer, but IMHO a judge can only rule on matters of law, not science. In the Scopes’ case, didn’t the court find only that Mr. Scopes broke the law? The court didn’t rule on the validity of evolution, either for or against. I know a CoC lawsuit would be a civil case not a criminal case, but wouldn’t the court be limited to deciding legal not scientific issues? Thus the wording of (a) the laws that give the EPA the power to establish rules governing CO2 (IMHO the recent SCOTUS ruling indicated we have already lost this battle) and (b) the wording of the indictment against the EPA are critical to the legal case. Although the science would be an important part of the trial, the final issue decided by a court would be “the law” not “the science”.
On the otherhand, I believe the spectacle of a national trial can only help the skeptic’s case in the eyes of the public. This is especially true now that the world’s economies are struggling and the AGW alarmist position regarding restricting CO2 omission can only make the economic situation worse. In addition, an unlikely but possible outcome might be the abolishment of the EPA, or at least a significant weaking of its power. IMHO such a possibility might well be worth the risk.
As you can infer from the above, I’m conflicted and as such, I voted “undecided” in the poll. In the end, mother nature will decide the “science” winner, and man will decide the “social action” winner. I’d hate to win the battle (science) but lose the war (social action).
Reed Coray
bill (06:16:57) :
“DDT was abandoned not because of greenies but because …”
No! It was banned because William Ruckelshaus decided to ban it because of pressure from “greenies” [and against the advice of his advisory science staff]. See here
I wish the U.S. C of C all the best of luck with this, but I fear for impartiality in some venues.
Who bears the burden of proof. i.e. do the sceptics have to prove that AGW is not true or does the EPA have to prove that it is?
Ultimately Mother Nature will be th judge, jury and excecutioner.
You said it! Could not agree with you more!
http://www.squidoo.com/no-more-incumbants
http://noincumbentsthistime.blogspot.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://voidnow.org/
http://www.anti-incumbents.com/
http://www.voteoutallincumbents.net/
http://freemenow.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/incumbents-need-not-apply-2010/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22913.htm
….
J.K. (07:37:07) : “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?”
The LA who?
F. Ross (10:52:00) :
DDT was banned, to say it straight, to decrease the population of dark coloured people. DDT in my country made malaria and dengue fever almost disappear during the 60´s; now these are found even in our capital city.
The C of C and the American public and the world in general would be best served if the litigation turned on issues of limits of governance. In my fantasy ruling the EPA would be required to demonstrate that CO2 was a pollutant AND it was empowered to address it AND its remediations were subject to oversight.
I voted “No”, but I’ve rethought things. A judgement won’t change partisans minds either way, but it will delay harmful and unnecessary regulations.
Wrong group bringing the suit, and wrong suit to bring. Someone (Judicial Watch, or a similar group) needs to sue the US government for fraud. The EPA has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. That can be easily confronted, as CO2 is absolutely necessary for ALL plant life, and a reasonable level is necessary for animal life to function properly. The EPA refused to act on internal evidence that would have complicated their decision process. The couldn’t do that in a fraud trial. Discovery would require the posting of ALL evidence, both for and against. The scientific community would be required to be present on both sides if called as “expert witnesses”. The whole thing would end up in the public record, and anyone could access the date for their own study. No matter who “won”, the science of climate change would advance.
LloydH writes “Who bears the burden of proof. i.e. do the sceptics have to prove that AGW is not true or does the EPA have to prove that it is?”
I asked the same question and did not get an answer. Probably a better question is – Does anyone know where to get the answer?
Lucy Skywalker (04:24:58) :
“Nixon was impeached. ”
Actually not, he resigned before the House vote. Clinton was impeached, but the Senate voted not to remove him from office.
SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the EPA must regulate it or show that it causes no harm. Fat chance of the latter in this administration.
I suspect the court will decide that CofC does not have “standing” to file this suit. After all, the science is settled and the debate is over. Still, would be nice to get a bit of the promised ‘transparency’, at least on data and adjustments, assuming that it isn’t a National Security issue.
I note an unusual proportion of warmists found the proposal of sufficient concern to chip in their opinions, something they don’t usually bother with.
It may thus be inferred that said trial would probably be a good idea, but it cannot be decided by a judge, given the political bias of the entire legal profession, nor can we trust a jury (remember the OJ murder trial?). As someone above suggested, the proper decider would be the American public, though it might be wise to limit voters to those capable of making an informed decision.
The most important reason to have a trial is that the warmists evidence itself will first be held against scientific standards of legal validity. This will not only mandate all data and methods be disclosed publicly, but will allow for ample testimony from many scientists challenging warmists papers, particularly based on their statistical methods, errors in data collection, poor siting, etc, as not meeting the definition of scientific evidence, and thus being excluded from trial. When the warmists best ammo is excluded from trial, we’ll win by default.
This does of course mandate that skeptics publish a lot more rigorous work that will meet a legal standard.
This resource ought to set us all straight:
http://globalwormingisreal.com/blog/
I had to laugh and then pass it on to you guys…
M
“…and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect….”
I can’t see how this would work. Judges are skilled at making decisions based on legal principle, not in investigative science.
it’s a fairly strong legal principle that the word of senior, experienced, establishment leaders carries more weight than maverick dissenters. In science the mavericks are often right, but in law the Royal Society and the APA represent science. Steve McIntyre has said as much – he said that he wants politicians to listen to their Chief Scientists. He just wants the establishment Chief Scientists to come to the right conclusion.
This is a problem with science, not something that can be solved legally. If I were the judge, deciding on the evidence before me, I would probably have to come down on the side of Global Warming. The judge cannot do the hockey stick sums from the bench. He must say, “Professor Mann, in youir expert opinion, is the Hockey Stick true?”. And then weigh the answer according to Professor Mann’s standing. So, if they go to law, the climate skeptics are likely to be borked…
“Does the EPA have to prove that CO2 is a pollutant, or does the Chamber of Commerce have to prove that it is not a pollutant?”
Jurisprudence dictates that the party making an assertion has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their assertion is correct. If the EPA asserts that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’ then, in a Court of Law, the EPA MUST prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that their assertion is true.
In Law innocence is PRESUMED, guilt has to be PROVEN. CO2 is NOT a pollutant until the EPA proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is a pollutant and is injurious to the health and well-being of the ENTIRE flora and fauna of this planet.
My apologies for the ‘shouting’ but I do feel very strongly that the developments in this field in the US are going to have major impacts around the globe, both politically and economically. As in many other endeavours, the US, by default as the one of the largest economies on the planet, is going to have to take the lead.
Please pick your battle-ground carefully, limit the area for manouvre by your adversary and attack with every weapon at your disposal. The rest of the world is going to be affected by the outcome of any trial or tribunal which considers this question.
Certainly in the UK , I wouldnt trust the civil courts to give a proper decision on such an issue. The old duffers in the chair bend over backwards generally to produce decisions that fly in the face of common sense, reason and public wishes.
Generally speaking most UK judges have limited scientific knowledge and would be fair game for counsel to manipulate and I would imagine the US would be the same. I doubt whether many of them can see the wood for the trees.
Many would on both sides of the pond would fall straight into the leftwing/ well educated/ priveledged/ do as I say not as I do mould
I voted ‘yes’, despite feeling that science should not be decided using the legal system. When science has been corrupted by politicians and big business, as has happened with Climatology, then something to get the truth exposed is needed.
Courts deal in factual evidence. As the theory of AGW is not falsifiable, it is also not capable of having a factual defence, so I’m certain that the skeptics would win. Once this happened, real climate science would start again.
LloydH (10:54:46) :
The burden of proof is upon those who wish to do the regulating and taxing.
Thier claimed need is unproven and untested.
Clinton was not impeached because of public outcry.
Public outcry will get the trial this issue deserves.
It deserves the trial because the science and public policy is being railroaded, and everyone knows it.
This isn’t about what you teach in a classroom, it’s about whether or not you have a classroom if the agenda has it’s way with the economy.
Well anyone who thinks that the courts sytem is the best method of getting at the truth; or even a method of getting at the truth, is kidding themselves.
Just imagine having your carefully gleaned scientifc real world data thrown out by the judge and banned from exposure to the jury, because you didn’t Miranda ize the source of your data; or you gathered the data without a lawyer for the opposition being present to advise what things you could observe and what things you couldn’t.
Certainly the American court system is an extremely inefficient way of getting at the truth; if it ever does. Take the absurd Simpson murder case for example. You could have grabbed the first three people you met on the street who could correctly spell their own name, and put them in a class room, and teach them about the rules of evidence, and the homicide laws; and then one could be appointed to act as judge, and the other two as counsel for the prosecution, and defence, and finished the trial in less time from the moment your brought those three off the street; and the Simpson trial would still have been in Jury selection.
But it weould be nice to petition the Congress, and ask them to not pass any environmental laws until the proponents proved their case with at least competent arguments from the other side.
Consider the non-existent “death panels” that Governor Palin criticised in the socialized medicine bill. Although they weren’t there anyway; the senate subsequently amended the bill to remove those non-existing death panels; which incidently were written into section 1233 of the socialised medicine bill by none other than the Hemlock Society; who we all know just want to be sure that Grannie spelled her name correctly in her will.
No the connection between the court system, and the truth, is about as good as the connection between the wind direction and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.