Are you now or have you ever been a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Global warming is here. That much is evident. But here's the key question.

Does CO2 'drive' global warming or does CO2 merely 'contribute' to global warming?

If 'drives' is correct, America and the rest of the world must quickly restructure our energy infrastructure to reduce CO2 emissions. But if CO2 merely 'contributes' to global warming, we need to rethink our response to global warming/climate change. If Mother Nature actually drives climate, then we should not move precipitously to burden our economy with carbon taxes and alternative-energy subsidies. I, for one, do not want to pay a dollar or two more per gallon or see the blight of wind mills because of faulty science.

Sadly, the United States has out-sourced our scientific opinion on global warming to the United Nations. ...an organization more concerned about political influence and funding than conducting good science.

It's crystal clear. The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming. We need the advice of a 'Climate Truth Commission' before we burden our economy with expensive energy. Both sides of the man-made global warming issue should welcome such an approach. ...since each is so darn sure of its facts.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

@Rmoen: The scientific consensus is that global warming is anthropogenic. So the answer is that human CO2 emissions are a cause (other human produced greenhouse gasses being the other causes) of the current unusual warming trend.

The UN IPCC doesn't do science. It merely does its best to produce reports usable by politicians based on the science done by scientist all over the world, including USA. If you have believe that the IPCC reports are misrepresenting the science due to some political influence, you should show the evidence, instead innuendo of such misconduct. Could it be that the US goverment has already asked for expert advice from US scientists on the IPCC reports and they've acknowledged the reports' validity?

Dude, while "US Chamber of Commerce" sounds like some kind of reasonable non-partisan organization, it actually is a far-right-wing corporate lobbying/propaganda group.

...so baffled am I at the notion that the Chamber would want to embrace an analogy that equates its position on anthropogenic global warming with creationism.

C'mon James they see your psuedo-religious AGW catastrophism as the creationism in this analogy.

Why would you be opposed to an open public hearing discussing the scientific evidence? They're not.

"C'mon James they see your psuedo-religious AGW catastrophism as the creationism in this analogy.

Why would you be opposed to an open public hearing discussing the scientific evidence? They're not."

Because science has never been settled in the courtroom. It gets settled by the scientific community, not by a single judge. And one judge can make all the difference. For the Dover trial, which was civil and not scientific, Judge Jones wasn't "activist" and made the right call based on the evidence brought into his courtroom.

There's always the chance that a hearing will get a presiding judge that's on a mission to set things "right". And that cuts both ways. Or it could be even worse: politicians could be called in to oversee it.

Frankly, a hearing would be nothing but a circus. If things could be confidently expected to follow the evidence, then the outcome would surely match what's in the literature: that AGW is real and we're looking at a fair amount of warming in the next century.

Why would you be opposed to an open public hearing discussing the scientific evidence? They're not

Because the courts don't decide science. Take Scopes for example: the court found in favor of the creationists.

Is it too much to think they equated themselves with the creationists because they think the creationists have a valid point against those librul evilutionists.

Why would you be opposed to an open public hearing discussing the scientific evidence? They're not.

Because people's opinions don't decide science. There is already a consensus in the scientific community on global warming. If you don't agree with that, the proper channel is to come up with an experiment that disproves it. You can't just go to a judge and have it decided for you.

I would have thought that you would welcome the opportunity to show that your views are correct.

If your "science" is sound, this will not be a problem. You should stand proud and take on all comers.

If your "science" is not sound, then just imagine the embarrassment, the law suits for fraud, the damaged reputations, the public castigation... a small price to pay for accuracy.

Al Gore's movie was challenged in Britain and found to have (I seem to recall) 9 major inaccuracies which had to be communicated to school children before it was shown in schools.

Why be afraid of criticism?

mrl: A concensus in the scientific community is about as valuable as a concensus in the political or economic or tiddlywinks communities - if the main elements of your viewpoint don't stand up to scrutiny, it doesn't matter a jot whether lots of people agree with you or not - you are still wrong.

Jock... showing that your views are correct is one thing, but having a judge and jury decide on scientific fact is ridiculous. Why don't we decide how to best treat a heart attack by having a judge decide? It has nothing to do with being afraid of criticism. It's about one side with ulterior motives trying to sway reality so that it fits their best interests... and science wants no part in it.

As for the consensus of scientists... you're right, they don't agree much. But there aren't too many credible scientists that doubt AGW. It's like creationists, they find differences in opinion on specifics of evolution among evolutionary scientists and they assume that there is scientific disagreement on evolution as a whole.

EPA, the only acceptable response to this proposal is, "Look, it's nice you want pageantry and all, but, we've got more productive things to do. Navel-de-linting, for example, is far more useful a calling."

> The Chamber says "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." <

If the Chamber gets defeated, will they shut up then?

Can these people be as ignorant as that? As another commenter said, the C of C is saying they are the equivalent of the prosecution in the Scopes trial. Do they know anything about that, or do they think its outcome was a great triumph of truth over "science"?

But as to a "trial" I have a better idea. Let's vote on it! In fact, let's let second graders vote on it. On second thought, the C of C won't go for that, because the second graders are likely to be more educated about AGW than the C of C is.

This isn't ignorance: this is stupidity. "Evolution vs. creationism"? "Science on trial"?

They've gone too far. This is irresponsible, reckless, buck-first greed carried to extremes. And we thought the birthers were insane ...

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce as extinction event -- hmm, might be a good headline...

Overlooked Shockley's post: Jock, Jock, Jock; or should that be Joke, Joke, Joke?
Obfuscate away, JS. It's been a wicked day and I need some mindless humor. Care to take a pie in the face? Slip on a banana? Do the honorable thing and take an exam after reading "Final Exit"?

"If the Chamber gets defeated, will they shut up then?"

I think this is the crux. For science (if we think about it as a homogeneous entity for the sake of the argument) there is nothing to gain in this contest.
If it's defeated, which can happen irrespective of whether it is factually correct - see the very Scopes trial - it will be a mayor blow and a serious setback.
If it wins, it gains precisely nothing. The opponents will demand more trials, more hearings, more evidence ad infinitum and will remain unconvinced. See the recent Dower trial. It didn't seem to have persuaded many creationists to change their minds. Or methods.

Who would the judges be? Would they be selected by the Chamber of Commerce? (That hardly seems fair.)

Since a ruling by the EPA that C02 is a "pollutant", as defined by the Clean Air Act, would trigger an avalanche of regulation and most likely fines affecting innumerable industries and public utilities it is quite appropriate that they should be required to present a publicly accessible case that C02 is indeed a pollutant.

This isn't meant to put "science" on trial. It is meant to make sure that a public forum is presented to show the evidence justifying the draconian measures EPA would be empowered to impose should the agency declare C02 a "pollutant".

Again if you are so sure that there is a "mountain of evidence" supporting your catastrophic predictions you should welcome this public forum.

Lance, it takes some pretty fancy verbal yoga to strawman yourself, but I applaud the effort.

See, read the challenge. It's not about the EPA presenting its pollutant case. (That was done two years ago, courtesy of the Supreme Court itself via Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - oh, I'm sorry, you do respect court decisions more than scientific ones, don't you?)

Rather, the challenge is for, literally, a show trial - in the words of the chamber's own senior VP (environment, technology, regulatory affairs), "It would be the science of climate change on trial".

Seeing as their analogy is the Scopes trial, you should see the distinction between scientific proceedings and courtrooms right away. The Scopes trial ruled in favor of the creationists, but that didn't disprove evolution. (It merely showed that teaching evolution was against the law at the time, which it was.)

Science progresses through the scientific process. You want to have your voice heard? Submit to the peer-reviewed journals. Maybe if your side hired scientists instead of lawyers and lobbyists, you might understand this.

More to discuss: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=174&id=2…

How about using "objective scientists" as judges? Then the alarmists can maintain the "sanctity of science" - it also means they'll have less of a leg to stand on after.

Why not have a trial or a full debate? Truth is likely to be the only guaranteed winner: false science the only guaranteed loser.

Jackal: Good to see you staying on point as usual. I look forward to you saying something relevant one day.

Jock Shockley: I say again,

If the Chamber gets defeated, will they shut up then?

It's a very simple question.

The Chamber of Commerce claims that a mock trial is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."

So, if finally a decision is made and it's not in their favour, will they accept the decision and shut up?

If not, then what's the point of having a mock trial or a debate other than to make more noise?

Brian D.

The Supreme Court Decision just ruled that the EPA had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 presupposing it to be a "pollutant".

If CO2 does not present a danger to public health or safety then the EPA has no more right to regulate it than nitrogen or pop corn for that matter.

That is what needs to be determined in an open public forum.

Your juvenile reference to "sides" shows that you have less interest in public policy being openly presented and discusses than in furthering a political agenda.

Lance:

< That is what needs to be determined in an open public forum. >

I ask, for the third time,

If the Chamber gets defeated, will they shut up then?

Again, it's a very simple question, with a simple answer. Maybe Lance, or Jock, or the US Chamber of Commerce can provide the answer.

bi,

I have no idea what the US Chamber of Commerce would do if the result of the public debate were to go in favor of the EPA regulating CO2 as a "pollutant".

How about you, would you acknowledge the fact that there is likely to be no substantial "threat to public health or safety" from CO2 if the decision of the public hearing finds such to be the case?

The point is that many scientists and non-scientists are of the opinion that CO2 poses no such threat and a public hearing would allow for an open forum to decide public policy which is the way we decide things here in the US except for matters of national security.

Are you claiming that the question of whether CO2 is a threat to public health and safety cannot be decided in a publicly accessible forum due to some "states secret"? Or do you just wish to impose your will on the public without the need for pesky public discussions and hearings?

bi: ask the Chamber (obviously!)
The big question is "will you accept an independent arbiiter's finding"?
I am happy to accept a finding, if the arbiter is independent and objective, and if the assessment process is objective, public, scientifically credible, and open to all evidence.
I am not aware of these conditions having being met to date.

Lance:

> How about you, would you acknowledge the fact that there is likely to be no substantial "threat to public health or safety" from CO2 if the decision of the public hearing finds such to be the case? <

It's the Chamber of Commerce, not me, not the EPA, who's asking for the hearing. The EPA says the hearing will be a waste of time. I also agree it's a waste of time. Why should we abide by the decision of a mock trial which we never agreed to?

* * *

< I am happy to accept a finding, if the arbiter is independent and objective, and if the assessment process is objective, public, scientifically credible, and open to all evidence. >

< I am not aware of these conditions having being met to date. >

So you're saying that the Chamber of Commerce, who asked for the mock trial in the first place, did not bother to find an objective arbiter and put in place an objective and verifiable assessment process? Therefore they're entitled to ignore the finding of a mock trial which they asked for in the first place?

So I ask one more time,

If the Chamber gets defeated, will they shut up then?

It looks more and more like the answer is going to be "no"...

-- bi

So Jock and I both said that we couldn't speak for the US Chamber of Commerce and instead of just maybe asking them, they have a website USChamber.com ya know, you blather on that somehow they should sense your indignant request and spontaneously appear to appease your peevish outrage.

You are apparently quite a powerful person (in your own mind).

Lance:

> they have a website USChamber.com ya know, <

You know, I just checked it, and apparently outsiders can't send questions to them through the Internet, because there's no way to do it.

> we couldn't speak for the US Chamber of Commerce <

You're completely capable of speaking for yourselves. And it's clear that both of you will find it perfectly OK even if the US Chamber of Commerce decides not to honour the decision of a mock trial they themselves asked for.

-- bi

bi: you seem to be having some difficulty with this concept.
Step 1: get the concept accepted by valid representatives of the two sides
Step 2: organize the players (including arbiters acceptable to both sides, and those who will present/co-ordinate the respective arguments).
Step 3: run the trial.
Hopefully you can now understand the process.

It seems rather obvious to anybody who deals in this sphere that the arbiter and assessment process would have to be agreed (do I have to explain this word?) by at least two parties before the proceedings can start.
Perhaps you aren't involved at this "walk the walk" level.

Interesting question: who would represent the alarmist camp? IPCC and Al Gore never get into debates. Who could do this?

"Science By Consensus" is a nonsense. If everybody agrees on something, then that's probably intuition or religion at work.

Science is a tested, repeatable and falsifiable hypothesis - so it is perfectly capable of being proven or disproven by hard evidence presented in understandable form to an impartial judge.

It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce is so confident it can produce a winning case.

Heaven forbid that alarmists be asked to "defend the science of climate change at a public hearing." Everyone knows you can't question or attempt to prove religious beliefs - they're mostly based on faith, and faith simply can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"GW has become just another faith based belief, immune to all conflicting reason and evidence. Although it maintains a claim to being based on science, it's relation to genuine, evidence based, logically consistent, refutable science is not unlike that of Scientology, with which it shares a number of commonalities." - from Global Warming, a Mass Mania by Walter Starck