Don't they know...the evolutionists won

[Tonington]

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.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming -- latimes.com

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."

So, they'll STFU if the trial doesn't go their way? Yeah right.

 

[CDNBear]

Sounds reasonable...

But then again, it seems only those out side the whole MMGW campaign want to evalute the evidence in the open.

 

[taxslave]

Sounds fair. I want to hear Suzuki's explanation of how his jet doesn't create CO2 or have a carbon footprint.

 

[CDNBear]

Sounds fair. I want to hear Suzuki's explanation of how his jet doesn't create CO2 or have a carbon footprint.

Hell I'ld just like to hear him debate it in public without throwing a fit...:lol:

 

[Niflmir]

Sounds reasonable...

But then again, it seems only those out side the whole MMGW campaign want to evalute the evidence in the open.

If special relativity was put to a jury, they would likely give up on it, and the GPS satellites would fall out of the sky as general relativity went with it. It is just so beyond what a ``reasonable person'' would find believable. In fact, the GPS satellites have a general relativity override directive built into them because the generals in the army didn't believe in it and forced the scientists to do it. When they saw the system fail in a matter of minutes, they were well convinced.

The problem is, you cannot put a system override into everything. "The only way we can know that launching all of our nukes will destroy the planet is by doing it," is not a well thought out experiment. This is a ridiculously extreme example, I know, but something similar is happening with global warming. If we do nothing and the environment winds up destroyed, how can we recuperate from that?

Who exactly is going to stand up for the science of global warming? The scientists? As a special interest group, they are usually (emphasis on usually) far more interested in furthering science than in politics. Unlike what most people think, there is not a lot of money in the hands of scientists, especially to wage a lengthy legal battle. Who is going to fund the defense? This is just a gigantic slap suit.

No matter who wins, the other side will keep fighting, because this is not some sort of constitutional challenge. It is just a huge waste of tax payer dollars, and I am glad it is not mine.

 

[CDNBear]

If special relativity was put to a jury, they would likely give up on it, and the GPS satellites would fall out of the sky as general relativity went with it. It is just so beyond what a ``reasonable person'' would find believable. In fact, the GPS satellites have a general relativity override directive built into them because the generals in the army didn't believe in it and forced the scientists to do it. When they saw the system fail in a matter of minutes, they were well convinced.

With the fact that military folk rarely enjoy following 'theory'. The fact that Einsteins was added to Newton's law, may have had an undue effect on their judgment.

The problem is, you cannot put a system override into everything. "The only way we can know that launching all of our nukes will destroy the planet is by doing it," is not a well thought out experiment. This is a ridiculously extreme example, I know, but something similar is happening with global warming. If we do nothing and the environment winds up destroyed, how can we recuperate from that?

I have never advocated doing nothing. In fact, I have gone further and asked why we are centralizing the effort on one aspect of our environment. Especially when there are aspects far more acutely affected, then those involved in the MMGW movement.

Who exactly is going to stand up for the science of global warming? The scientists? As a special interest group, they are usually (emphasis on usually) far more interested in furthering science than in politics. Unlike what most people think, there is not a lot of money in the hands of scientists, especially to wage a lengthy legal battle. Who is going to fund the defense? This is just a gigantic slap suit.

Like you said, they haven't a lot of money, hence the new church of GW. The loudest and most doomdayish, gets the funds.

Hence why I would like to a more formalized, analytical debate.

No matter who wins, the other side will keep fighting, because this is not some sort of constitutional challenge. It is just a huge waste of tax payer dollars, and I am glad it is not mine.

I would otherwise agree, I'm sure you've noticed I hate wasting money. But I think the whole issue needs some airing out.

This idea sounded good at first, your comments have made me rethink that, you are likely correct in your assessment, but we do need something to sort the hyperbole from the fact.

Any suggestions?

 

[Niflmir]

Any suggestions?

Not the courts. It is well believed and well deserved that the best spoken lawyer has the most likely chance at success.

At this point it is nigh impossible to separate the facts from the sophistry. There are vested interests all over the place, the only real way to come to a conclusion is to involve oneself in the science. The problem is that there are so many scientists who want to explain it to the layman (something I support as a good cause) but this gives the false impression that it is really as simple as that. Of course, this furthers the interests of those who wish to do nothing, because they can latch onto ideas like chaos theory and make proclamations like, "We don't understand anything."

I believe that anybody can understand the science if they are willing and able to put the time into studying it. For the most part people are unable, it simply takes too much time that they likely don't have, what with other responsibilities and interests.

I don't have good answers. I am lucky that my science is not applicable to anything really, I can pretend like black holes are easily understandable by everyone. The only price I pay is getting emails from crazy people trying to sell me on some crackpot idea. We generally believe we have a responsibility to explain our theories and this has the drawback of making them appear completely understandable to the outsider who would like to disagree with some non-intuitive conclusion (black holes, big bang, neutron stars, time dilation, no faster than light travel, so on).

 

[Tonington]

Any suggestions?

There are no quick and easy answers.

Read the history of this subject. Spencer Weart has a very detailed accounting of how the science has developed. You will find all the answers you need on that website.

 

[Niflmir]

The more I think about this the more I think this is what peer review was designed to do.

The basic idea is that it is actually quite easy to dissent with the commonly held view in the peer review system. If you have a new model you publish it and lay out the basic ideas and the basic conclusions. Next time somebody publishes with the model they are expected to answer one further point. The basic idea is that a false model has further and further difficulties accounting for the new observations. Or they need to alter parameters (if there are any) which can break the ability to account for the previous observations. Eventually it becomes so difficult that a scientist cannot stick with a model and must abandon it, since it is hard to ask for funding when no results come out of previous projects.

This clearly cannot happen in a court of law. Each side will be given equal time to speak and equal weight will be given to them. Somehow the individual sides will have to know the weakpoints in the other sides models and account for all of them in their own models while downplaying their own models. Clearly if one side is more correct than the other they could talk longer about accounting for the observations, and thus would be seen as having undue weight.

I think the only real reason that the Scopes trial could be successful is because creationism has an obvious religious element--needing a creator--and so poses a constitutional question.

 

[Tonington]

Well, the Scopes trial was actually much different than what the US CoC proposes. The Scopes trial didn't even overturn the law in question: being that it was illegal to teach evolution in school, which the case proved had happened.

This matter to me is just about delaying any possible regulations from the endangerment finding, which hasn't even been finalized yet. The EPA framework works much better than any legal proceeding could.

Despite the CoC's claims that cross-examination is needed, they can't cross-examine the EPA, because the EPA didn't generate the data that lead to the endangerment finding in the first place. You can't ask someone in a court of law to defend the methods of someone else. Hearsay.

The transparency claims by the CoC? Well the EPA made a notice ten months before they even started the ball rolling, before the obligatory 60 day comment period. Everyone knew it was coming long in advance. There were two hearings. You can read the over 12,000 comments here. They made their findings public, with citations of supporting literature.

It would be a huge waste of time. But since the CoC has already said they will sue anyways, I think it could be useful for the EPA to act pre-emptively. If they did have another public hearing (redundant, but what the CoC is requesting), they could frame the debate by dealing with the most ridiculous claims by the CoC, and then leave the Circuit court judge (assuming they still litigate) an easy decision as to whether the endangerment finding was(is) arbitrary and capricious.

It's all a bunch of nonsense anyways. Those that are already opposed to the idea likely won't be swayed anyways. Maybe a few, but the majority have deeper seeded issues with the science. It's a delaying tactic. Nothing more.

 

[Unforgiven]

What they should have a trial about is not if GW is MM but instead why God is so pissed at us that he is going to kill us all at some point.

 

[Niflmir]

What they should have a trial about is not if GW is MM but instead why God is so pissed at us that he is going to kill us all at some point.

We're an embarassment. An all perfect god set up his perfect creations in a perfect paradise (how could a perfect god create any less?) and yet we disobeyed this god. Said god has been trying to eradicate us ever since, and then feeling guilty about trying to kill everyone, and then getting pissed off some more and trying to kill us again.

 

[AnnaG]

We're an embarassment. An all perfect god set up his perfect creations in a perfect paradise (how could a perfect god create any less?) and yet we disobeyed this god. Said god has been trying to eradicate us ever since, and then feeling guilty about trying to kill everyone, and then getting pissed off some more and trying to kill us again.

lol That's cute, N.
It makes more sense to me to think that gods have nothing to do with anything and that PEOPLE are killing each other off by whatever means (disease, famine, war, etc.)

 

[Unforgiven]

We're an embarassment. An all perfect god set up his perfect creations in a perfect paradise (how could a perfect god create any less?) and yet we disobeyed this god. Said god has been trying to eradicate us ever since, and then feeling guilty about trying to kill everyone, and then getting pissed off some more and trying to kill us again.

Sounds like some God is a little moody. Could it be a psychological compunction this love hate relationship? Or perhaps a slight chemical imbalance. In making man in his image does he not suffer the maladies we do?