U.S. Chamber of Commerce Proposes "Scopes Monkey Trial" to Debunk Climate Change

Stephen Colbert could not have done better. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the leading opponent of regulating carbon emissions, says it wants a public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. A Chamber official told the LA Times that the hearing would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st Century."
The Chamber either forgot that the creationists won that fight--though in the long run, the famous 1925 trial over the teaching of evolution, portrayed in Inherit the Wind, humiliated them--or it's attempting the boldest metaphor in the history of climate spin: creationists = climatologists.
Setting aside the fact that the nation's largest business lobby has supported plenty of dumb ideas, let's assume that this isn't really about science. Because there's no way that a half-competent judge is going to rule that 95 percent of climatologists are wrong. Remember the Supreme Court case? The one that said the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon?
No, what this is really about is false populism. Though it's evoking Scopes, the Chamber is actually calling for a "public hearing," a gathering that would surely be more akin to the recent healthcare town halls that were stacked with anti-government nutjobs. What fearmongering and demagaugery did for health care, it could do for climate change!
Or not. My bet is that 90 percent of the Bubbas who'd show up would also be creationists, the people discredited in the first Monkey Trial. Good luck with that, fellas!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Actually...
...the creationists DID win the trial. The reason you think they didn't is because we now look back and see how silly the whole episode was. In other words, your point stands, but Scopes lost the trial.
This is legal ignorance at
This is legal ignorance at its finest! The CoC watches 'Law and Order' and thinks it can call for a public trial of EPA's endangerment finding? Au contraire, folks. The only reason Scopes had a trial was because he was charged with a crime. EPA ain't exactly a schoolteacher, and it is not violating any ordinance in making an endangerment finding.
As a federal agency, challenges to EPA determinations may only occur through administrative law review of agency action. That means a federal judge, not a jury, would be reviewing the basis of EPA's endangerment finding. Moreover, the judge would have a very narrow determination to make: is EPA's finding based on reasonable evidence, or is it "arbitrary and capricious" (a term of art the describes the nature of judicial review)? That doesn't amount to the judge reviewing all the science and making her own determination as to the independent validity of the finding -- why on Earth would you want a judge with no scientific training or expertise making that call? Rather, the judge must afford the agency broad discretion, and EPA's endangerment finding would almost certainly be upheld. Game over, CoC. No trial. No jury. No demagoguery.
Designers of fashionable
Designers of fashionable things make fashion costly and everyone can not afford it. But now they don't have to worry because replicas of designers' products are available in the market. These replicas are not that must costly. Handbag is one of the accessories which designers love to design. These designers handbags are with higher cost and common woman can not afford it. It is nice option for those ladies who can not have enough budgets to buy designers handbags. It is designer replica handbags. Replica handbags are with reasonable price and one can by several replica handbags in the price of one designer handbag.
fake handbags
replica chanel
replica gucci
replica louis vuitton
replica handbags wholesale
replica shoes
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.


