Should ‘global Warming’ Be Put On Trial? Would Such A Trial Allow For More Transparency On The Issue?

U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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/…


6 Responses to “Should ‘global Warming’ Be Put On Trial? Would Such A Trial Allow For More Transparency On The Issue?”

  1. From the warmer reactions I feel the mounting evidence that is the sun that controls the climate is really getting to them. They are illustrating all the panic of a priest caught by the parents in the baptistery with the new choir boy!

  2. Dana1981, Master of Science on February 9th, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Please. And when you lose, will you finally stop wasting everyone’s time with pointless debate?
    edit:
    As in – Please find a way to get this into court so you can get trounced like the creationists did.

  3. Seriously, does your mom still drive you to work and remind you to brush your teeth?

  4. Oh I only wish!!! That would show how utterly deficient your argument is. But, there will always be people like you.

  5. Richard the Physicist on February 10th, 2010 at 1:47 am

    This question was asked yesterday.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
    And no, it would be an utter waste of taxpayer money. Not only is the science clearly in support of AGW, but a similar trial already happened in Vermont, and deniers (represented by John Christy) lost.http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/13/ha…
    However, if the members of the chamber of commerce are willing to pay for this trial, it’s fine with me. It won’t have much effect – decades after the Scopes trial the majority of Americans still believe in Creationism. I’m sure when they lost, deniers would just claim the trial was rigged or the judge was a communist. But as long as the members of the chamber of commerce (e.g. Dow Chemical, Fox Entertainment, Toyota North America, Nike) pay for it, go right ahead.
    Yes BB, it “scares the Buhgeezus out of me” that there might be a repeat of a trial we already won. Man deniers are dimwitted.

  6. Dana1981, Master of Science on February 10th, 2010 at 6:16 am

    < >
    way to go.
    have courts rule science.
    “James Hansen, you’re under house arrest. Right over there next door to Galileo Galilei.”

Leave a Reply