Global Warming To Be Put On Trial?

Mr_Blank writes to mention that the United States' largest business lobby is pushing for a public trial to examine the evidence of global warming and have a judge make a ruling on whether human beings are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "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.' [...] Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science — and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."

Comments

Re:The goal of the chamber

[drinkypoo]

and it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it

Even the Bush administration admitted these things before they left the building. The idea of suing for scientific consensus is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... no, wait, being forced to give creationism equal time in class is a more ludicrous idea. But this is close...

Re:Just what we need

[jcochran]

I'd suggest reading a bit of:

Kicking the Sacred Cow
by James P Hogan.

You would be rather surprised and intrigued by what you'll read.

In a nut shell, the evidence via ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc do show a correlation between increased global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
However, it seems that the carbon dioxide levels increase about 40 to 50 years *after* the temperature increase.

Additionally, the archeological evidence coming to light now isn't that the naming of of Greenland by the vikings wasn't a propaganda triumph, but instead a quite literal statement. Interestingly enough, *farms* are being discovered under the glaciers.

Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I think that's something that's hugely overlooked---energy is becoming not only a hammer for the big corps to put the hurt smaller businesses, but the regulations are also suited that way such that only large corps are either getting paid or will meet or be excluded from the energy regs.

Also from the article summary:

"and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."

Umm, no. Scopes lost in the trial. That said, the public perception of the trial was that the claims made against Scopes were ridiculous. But saying scientists won is wrong from a historical perspective, the judicial decision standpoint, and even the current, modern day standpoint where (the extent of) evolution is still debated today.

Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming

[je ne sais quoi]

My question is this: What is the EPA _really_ trying to accomplish with this? Covering CO2 under the Clean Air Act would completely hamstring American businesses, forcing them to severely cut CO2 emissions

This is completely and utterly false. In other words, it isn't true. Case in point: Germany, like many other EU states has implemented a carbon tax to limit CO2 emissions. It's working in that Germany's emissions are now below the Kyoto accord requirements. All this, yet Germany's economy is recovering from their recession, and the recovery is faster than the U.S. recovery is. Lastly, the carbon taxes have all been projected to increase the number of jobs, not "hamstring" businesses like you say:

The positive effects of the ecological tax reform were highlighted by the Federal Environmental Bureau (Umweltbundesamt) in early 200210 when it stated that by the end of that year, its projections showed that ecotaxes would have reduced CO2 emissions by more than 7 million tonnes while at the same time creating almost 60,000 new jobs. Other researchers 11 were even more positive, saying that between 176,000 and 250,000 new jobs would be created. These figures were based on the assumption that the trade unions would moderate their wage demands by linking any increases in gross pay to changes in prices and productivity.

So when you look at the actual evidence, carbon taxes do pretty much precisely exactly the opposite of what you said. Do yourself a favor and stop reading talking points written by Exxon.

CO2 increase lags temprature increase...

[TapeCutter]

... rates number 11 in this handy list of psuedo-skeptical arguments

Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming

[A. B3ttik]

This isn't Carbon Taxes. This isn't Kyoto.

It's worse.

It would classify CO2 under the same classification as Asbestos, Chloroform, and other dangerous toxic chemicals, attempting to effectively limit emissions by orders of magnitude. That's not cutting it in half, or even a third. It's cutting it down by a factor of TEN.

It's stupid and impossible.

Re:des

[TheRaven64]

As another poster pointed out, the dip that you refer to is still above the temperature for the entire preceding 100 years and is smaller than several other dips that occurred in that period. There are several reasons that 'climate change' is preferred over 'global warming':

• When some people hear Global Warming they think 'I wouldn't mind warmer weather, this sounds good.'
• A lot of people seem to only hear the 'warming' part and ignore the 'global' part, as in 'it's been cold here, therefore global warming must be wrong.'
• The climate is a chaotic system, and once it swings away from one equilibrium point it's very difficult to predict exactly where it will land. With most models, the difference between conditions that will end in desertification for a region are very close to those that will end with glaciation. Neither of these is particularly good for humans, but the difference is like balancing a coin its edge and then flicking it. It's difficult to predict which side it will land on, but it's pretty easy to predict that it won't land on the edge.

Having read some of the posts in this discussion, I'm starting to think chaos theory should be taught in high schools, although I'd have thought that the typical Slashdot reader would have at least a basic grounding in the subject.

Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming

[spectrokid]

Oh yes please, PLEASE continue like this. CO2 reduction is BAD for American companies!!! In the mean while, here in Denmark we will develop CO2 reduction technology like insulation, biofuels and windmills. Ten years from now, you can then come back to this forum and ask yourself why Uncle Sam lost all its jobs to a "socialist" welfare state.

Re:Just what we need

[MrHanky]

Have you checked whether the Romans actually grew grapes in England, or are you just repeating stuff you read on the internet? I ask since you say it's impossible today. Which it isn't. Southern England has a proper wine industry. Today, it's even possible to grow grapes some places in Norway.

I know re-posting bullshit you've seen at +5, insightful before can be tempting, but half of your "empirical" evidence is plain wrong, and I haven't found sources for the other part (not that there's much point to it).

Re:They are NOT Denying Global Warming

[ArcherB]

For the first time in 6 years the Iraq war is INCLUDED in the budget. Part of that 1.8 trillion dollars is the war that George Bush kept off the books the whole time he was in office.

TRY AGAIN

Do you have a citation? I do. It's the same site listed above, which is an anti-war site, btw.

To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The national, state, and local numbers we provide are based on the total approved amounts through the end of Fiscal Year 2009.

In addition to this approved amount, the FY2010 budget shows a $130 billion request for more war spending. This would bring total war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to more than $1 trillion. When all FY2010 war-related amounts are approved, we will adjust the counter so that it reaches the new total at the end of FY2010.

If you should compare the amount displayed on the numbers in our information sheets with the Cost of War counter, please note that the information sheets include all war spending approved to date, the same number that the counter will reach at the end of the 2009 fiscal year.

Looks like they are including what was in the budget.

Here's another one from the LA Times:

If Congress approves a request for another $87 billion, the Iraq war will have cost about $694 billion.

Here is a quote from another anti-war site. The title is Iraq War: The Cost of Bush Lies and His Influence of Not Being Accountable :

$800 billion through mid-2009 in U.S. taxpayer money

Sorry. Either you're wrong or everyone else is.