US Chamber: "Scopes Monkey Analogy Was Inappropriate": Backs Off While Insulting EPA, Scientists

[hatrack]

After saying just last week that it wanted to initiate a 'Scopes Trial' on the science of climate change, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has quickly reversed course in a blog post on the National Journal Energy Experts blog:

"My "Scopes monkey" analogy was inappropriate and detracted from my ability to effectively convey the Chamber's position on this important issue."


Bill Kovacs, Vice President for the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also took issue with media accounts of their actions last week. He claims the Chamber was unfairly accused of challenging the science behind climate change and characterized those who criticized the Chamber's outlandish stance as 'the anti-business lobby':

"Before responding to the National Journal's question, let me clarify a few things. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not denying or otherwise challenging the science behind global climate change. Many of the news articles on our petition the past few days made that claim. They are not correct. The anti-business lobby quickly jumped on these news articles without actually reading the substance of the Chamber's petition, casting us as climate "deniers." That is certainly unfortunate, but not unexpected. For many of these special interest groups, dogma trumps facts, and they've been calling us deniers for years, even though the Chamber supports sensible and ambitious congressional and international action on global climate change."


Mr. Kovacs is not participating in the discussion around climate legislation in good faith. You can't actively oppose all meaningful action on climate change and claim a few months later to "support sensible and ambitions congressional and international action" if you want people to take you at your word. Even some of the Chamber's own corporate members are fed up with their attempts to derail climate legislation, asking the Chamber in May to refrain from making comments unless they "reflect the full range of views, especially those of Chamber members advocating for congressional action." Adding insult to injury, Kovacs' extended rant also accuses the EPA of being ignorant of evidence that questions its conclusions, specifically citing a widely discredited hodgepodge of pseudoscience leaked earlier this year by the right wing Conservative Enterprise Institute.

EDIT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/us-chamber-walks-it-back_b_273689.html

[HereSince1628]

1. Court decisions require comparisons not to nature but to the law,

consequently courts have next to nothing to contribute to identifying the correct scientific interpretations of accurately recorded data.

A court will identify issues relevant to the law, analyze the circumstance of those issues in comparison to aspects of law, and then make some conclusion about how the issues relate to the law. Court decisions have few points of legal engagement with the processes of data collection and interpretation.

Admittedly, there ARE laws that deal with conspiracy to defraud--intentionally lying, faking data and taking money that was paid to produce honest data.

Attempting to frame a scientific discussion within the rules of a legal system that _cannot be_ strictly scientific is merely an attempt to change the location of the debate to a social venue that provides opponents of science the hope of some societal traction. To move global warming to a "Scopes-like" trial is to do to GW what the anti-evolutionists have done to evolution in the content in public school curricula.

[lapfog_1]

2. Sensible action == do nothing - n/t

[Fotoware58]

3. Hmmmm

Sounds an awful lot like the Sierra Club, with regard to forest management. They are the deniers of catastrophic mega-fires, and their solution is to do nothing!

[lapfog_1]

4. My remark was sarcasm.

"do nothing" is the corporate response to Global Warming, hence, when their mouthpiece, aka The US Chamber of Commerce, says "sensible response" what they really mean is "do nothing" or "requires more study".

[Fotoware58]

5. No argument that global warming is here but...

the parallels are quite "interesting" don't ya think??!?