US Chamber Wants Public Hearing On Warming Science: Wants "Scopes Trial" W. Judge Deciding "Truth"

[hatrack]

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." 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." 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.

The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."

EDIT

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

EDIT

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

[bananas]

1. Scopes was found guilty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

[happyslug]

2. And later admitted he NEVER violated the Anti-evolutionary law

The whole trial was made up from start to finish. Scopes had to be convinced by the town leaders to admit to teaching human evolution. The town leader saw the trial as a why to increase business in the town so ask Scopes, the popular high school football coach who had subbed for the High School Biology teacher when that teacher became sick just before finals. The ACLU had advertise throughout Tennessee for a teacher to break the law and they would defend them. No one took up the ACLU offer till Scopes did, and only after he was told by the local town people his job would be safe (And it was contrary to the portray in the movie) and he be treated with care (And he was, the arrest was a formality, bond was posted by the town so he never spend an hour in jail let alone overnight as portrayed in the Movie).

All Scopes claim to have done was taught human evolution during the review for the final. At the trial both sides had to be careful asking questions of the Students, they did not want to lie but Scopes had NOT taught Human evolution (And the underlying statute only outlawed teaching of Human Evolution NOT evolution itself).

Now how each sides presented their case was up to them, and Darrow decision to go for a guilty plead at the end was to keep Bryan from giving his closing statement but both sides had the opportunity to be heard AND BOTH SIDES VIEWED IT ONLY AS A FIRST STEP IN THE DEBATE ON TEACHING EVOLUTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS not the case to decide that issue. At the end of the trial Bryan gave a speech about the trail, part of which is below and even then he made the comment that the trial was the first step in the debate and debated was needed on the subject and that was the sole purpose of his participation in the trial.

Web site that goes deep into the Actual Scopes Trail:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennesse.html

Bryan Collage on the Trail and the play:
http://www.bryan.edu/1659.html

My point is Bryan and Darrow wanted to start a debate on teaching evolution in public schools, when the majority of Citizens objected. Can people object to what their children are to be taught? Or is what is being taught in Public Schools up to the professional in charge of such schools and the parents have no say, even through the parents are PAYING for the school? H.R. Mencken, who hated Bryan, originally supported the State on the grounds the state was NOT requiring anything being taught but that its employees could NOT teach what the state forbade. H.R. Mencken supported that position for it was the position that the people should NOT be force to pay for something their oppose. H.R. Mencken switch to supporting Scopes more do to his hated of Bryan (the leader of the progressive movement in the US from the 1890s till his death in 1925) then any other reason (H.R. Mencken also opposed fundamentalism but Bryan was a Presbyterian NOT Baptist but H.R. Mencken used the trial to attack fundamentalism).

Just a comment that the Scopes Monkey trial was viewed by both the ACLU and Bryan as way to get each side argument in front of the people and to get them to discuss it. The attempt by these anti-Warming groups is NOT to showcase both sides but only their side and that is a huge difference.