denial:global warming=creation:evolution?

denial:global warming=creation:evolution?

Summary: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to re-enact the famous Scopes Monkey Trial when the forces of faith and creationism tried to bar the teaching of Darwinian evolution to impressionable school children.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Health
20

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to re-enact the famous Scopes Monkey Trial when the forces of faith and creationism tried to bar the teaching of Darwinian evolution to impressionable school children. Only this time it would global warming theory on trial. Is this just another round in the culture wars of America? Science vs. religion, yet again? If there were to be a "trial," the Chamber of Commerce would like to see it take the form of an adjudicated public hearing on the EPA's finding that climate change is a danger to public health. Why does the Chmaber care? Because climate change may lead to federal and state laws that would alter how the Chamber's member corporations do business and make profits. Anything the Chamber can do to slow down potential legislation or even strangle it in a Congressional committee would be a big victory for some big businesses. Likewise a victory of denial in some public forum would be the death knell to many greentech start-ups that are a century or more behind fossil fuel industries in building up cash reserves, political clout and public awareness. [poll id="171"]

Topic: Health

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

20 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Wow!

    This is the first time 100% have agreed with me (for a microsecond)!
    kd5auq
    • "Science vs. religion"

      There we go again. Evolutionists always start the discussion by framing it as science vs no science. Whereas in fact increasing knowledge means increasing acceptance of facts which have been included in the Bible for thousands of years. Not only that - ever more knowledge is ignored because it doesn't fit the *religion* of evolutionary theory.

      Fuller, get a job. And if you stay in this job then at least try to be honest.
      CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
  • RE: denial:global warming=creationism:evolution?

    Somebody hasn't done their homework on the Scope's trial. Just a quick overview;
    1) The Scopes trial was sponsored by the ACLU (they wanted to test the Butler (anti-Darwinism act) in the court system;
    2) John Scopes NEVER TAUGHT EVOLUTION TO HIS STUDENTS (he merely coached the students during exams while the science teacher was ill);
    3) The students were told by ACLU lawyers to claim they were taught evolution (Scopes admitted this in Sprague de Camp's book, 'The Great Monkey Trial').
    4) ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow instructed the court to find his client guilty IN ORDER TO EVADE CROSS EXAMINATION by the prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan (Darrow had previously agreed to be cross examined following his own cross examination of Bryan).

    So the comparison is actually no very favorable to the "green" party.

    Just a few facts. As if "green" folks could care about those annoying little things...
    zak89
    • Facts...

      Funny you should bring up facts when the global warming deniers are still claiming that there is no scientific consensus on the subject. In fact, there is consensus. About as close to 100% consensus as you'll ever see in the scientific community. They don't let facts like "With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." get in their way.
      jasonp@...
      • Popular

        Sure there's plenty of consensus right now, because global warming is popular. Piltdown Man once was popular as well.

        Somethings never change.
        zak89
        • Popular???

          That's the best you've got? It's popular? Popular doesn't give you numbers like 100%. Your reference to the Piltdown man is humorous at best. It would require fraud at a level simply unattainable given technilogical advances. An apt comparison to the Piltdown man is much closer to the Montauk Monster, something that was debunked almost immediately. Nice effort though.
          jasonp@...
  • More like Kitzmiller v. Dover than Scopes

    Kitzmiller v. Dover is a better analogy.
    Reality-based
  • You're just setting yourself up for a lot of Talkbacks . . .

    You're just setting yourself up for a lot of Talkbacks . . .

    . . . and frankly, accomplishing very little.
    CobraA1
  • Why is this even an argument?

    If you gave me scientific evidence that proved a power
    plant in California caused a frog to die in Alabama I
    would be very impressed, but overall I just don't
    care.

    What I do care about is the Particle Emissions from
    the plant causing asthma, and the cost of my tax
    dollars paying for treatments.

    I do care about pollution from companies that my tax
    dollars have to go back and clean up.

    Ever heard of Love Canal? Do you think that was an
    isolated incident? If people get passionate about
    wasting tax payers moneys on government bail out
    plans, then I wonder what would happen total cost of
    "clean up" from polluting companies over the past 50
    years was discovered. Ever heard of "Super Fund
    Sites". If you don't then you really have no business
    even talking about any subject relating to the environment.

    I see this attempt to place global warming on trial as
    a distraction. I don't believe this has anything to do
    with global warming, but more to do with companies not
    wanting to be liable for the true burden of tax payers
    money. Which is exactly what any type of "global
    warming" legislation would do.

    The earth is very freaking complex when it comes to
    weather. I think it's kinda silly to even argue to
    true global impact of pollution on weather. We already
    have enough "known" reasons locally to impose more
    liabilities onto the irresponsible companies without
    the the green blooded warrior call of "GLOBAL
    WARMING".



    RDEngineer
    • The other problem is the reverse Begger Thy Neighbor side effect

      It's not just profit, it's competitive advantge that goes to those who take the cheaper polluting option.
      happyharry_z
  • You got it upside down

    A better analogy would be to compare the global warming theory to the theory of the earth being flat or to creationism for that matter.
    What you have is a bunch of ignorants (like Mr. Fuller here) who claims it is proven, but do not discuss how to prove because they believe some people people more intelligent and more qualified than them believe it and they can't be wrong.
    The earth was flat because the pope said so.
    Global warming is man-made because Al Gore said so.

    Now, try discussing the science behind these allegations and you get called all sorts of heretic names.

    Never mind the facts, never mind the science. Just go with dogma.
    totorlekiller
    • Maybe the ozone depletion or acid rain...

      I would suggest that the ozone depletion or acid rain are better analogies since we are talking about industry financial interests fighting against science that has found a potential [nothing is ever 100% proven unless you are talking about religion] problem caused by industry.

      The differences are that with climate change (1) the amount of money involved is orders of magnitude greater than with acid rain or ozone depletion and (2) the science is orders of magnitude more complex.

      I think we can agree on that much if nothing else.

      While I am not certain about the science, I find the math I've seen with respect to potential outcomes and associated costs to be a compelling argument for dealing with the potential problem [not to mention the side benefits of a healthier and more sustainable energy economy]. I'm not convinced you would be open to any rational argument.

      What probabilities do you assign to the various climate change predictions when deciding what you think we should or should not do? Or is there some ideological factor that trumps the cost or likelihood of any possible outcome? That's the impression I get when discussing the precautionary principle with climate-change deniers.
      oranpf
    • Funny...

      Let's look at some other "ignorants"...

      1. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      2. InterAcademy Council
      3. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      4. The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
      5. Network of African Science Academies
      6. Royal Society of New Zealand
      7. Polish Academy of Sciences
      8. American Association for the Advancement of Science
      9. European Science Foundation
      10. National Research Council (US)
      11. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      12. American Society for Microbiology
      13. Australian Coral Reef Society
      14. Institute of Biology (UK)
      15. Society of American Foresters
      16. The Wildlife Society (international)
      17. American Geophysical Union
      18. European Federation of Geologists
      19. European Geosciences Union
      20. Geological Society of America
      21. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      22. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      23. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
      24. American Academy of Pediatrics
      25. American College of Preventive Medicine
      26. American Medical Association
      27. American Public Health Association
      28. Australian Medical Association
      29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
      30. World Federation of Public Health Associations
      31. World Health Organization
      32. American Meteorological Society
      33. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      34. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      35. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      36. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
      37. World Meteorological Organization
      38. American Quaternary Association
      39. International Union for Quaternary Research
      40. American Astronomical Society
      ...

      The list continues on. These are all organizations who have publicly taken the position that global warming is real and that human activity has worsened the situation. The list of organizations who have taken the position that global warming is real but haven't conclusively determined that human activity has contributed is just as long.
      jasonp@...
      • my point exactly

        Nice list. But did you check the facts and the science yourself?
        You could find a list just as impressive of all the intellectual authorities that claimed the earth was flat.
        Now instead, one could just walk to the beach and time how long it takes for a boat to disappear behind the horizon and calculate the circumference.
        But back to the problem at hand. My recommendation is to just do what scientists do: challenge assumptions.
        There are plenty of interesting reading to find around for people with intellectual honesty.
        Here is one for example: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

        or that recent article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

        Or you can continue the sheep trick: all these people have their name on the list, so let's add mine and trust that they know things that I don't.



        totorlekiller
  • Repugnant propaganda

    The term "Climate Change Denial" should be a dead give away that the entire climate change debate is more about propaganda and ideology than hard science. Likening disagreement with a scientific theory to the Nazi holocaust is not only over the top propaganda but an aspersion to the memory of the six million victims of a state that used such sleight of mouth techniques to justify acts based on similarly shaky science (i.e. eugenics).
    Auriels_Flame
  • Denial and Propaganda

    A lot of people seem to think "global warming" is some politically motivated conjecture or conspiracy, or that the political argument is one pitting economic well-being against some ideals of environmentalism. These notions are misguided, but there is no way to correct such ideas because they are motivated not by a rational evaluation of evidence but by ideology.

    Some people "believe" in "science" but also assume that their ideology is so perfect and right that no science could ever appear to contradict it. This creates a problem when physical realities imply a trade-off between their ideals [e.g. "freedom" or "tradition"] and some other "good". Rather than admit that we have a difficult trade-off best resolved by open and honest debate, they assume that there must be a massive conspiracy/deception to account for the apparent imperfection in the world not accounted for by their ideology.
    oranpf
  • What a joke

    "Anything the Chamber can do to slow down potential
    legislation or even strangle it in a Congressional
    committee would be a big victory for some big businesses.
    Likewise a victory of denial"

    Victory for big business? So you believe small business and
    consumers won't be affected by any carbon legislation!

    Victory of denial? Surely when they win it for be a victory
    of science over quackery.

    Guess then this blog would become irrelevant. Ah so...

    Richard Flude
    • Sorry chum...

      but every single international organization of scientists in the world has taken a stance on global warming and every single one has come down on the side of it being a real phenomenon. That's right, there are...let's count 'em...zero organizations who assert that it isn't happening. Nada. Zilch. Science has stated its position clearly and unequivocally. If you choose to ignore it then yes, you are deep in denial.
      jasonp@...
      • Actually...

        Actually, science is pretty clear and says that we do not know.
        Moreover, all the models used to predict catastrophes have been debunked by science and empirical measurement.
        If anything, science is pointing the finger in the other direction.
        CO2 might be contributing, but because of how absorption of waves works, the band were CO2 plays are almost saturated, meaning no matter how much CO2 we add now, the effect would be almost null.
        And anyway, in the first place the effect of CO2 was not that significant, it is more likely that the warming observed (which is well within historical range) is caused by natural phenomenon.

        You stated that "every single international organization of scientists in the world has taken a stance on global warming", but how about you? Did you look at the science and decided? Or are you letting other do the thinking for you?

        An remember every single international organization of scientists in the world had taken a stance on the shape of the earth and concluded it was flat. The one dissenting were burnt or ignored. Sounds familiar?

        totorlekiller
  • RE: denial:global warming=creationism:evolution?

    The story's premise is asinine. It gratuitously aims to diminish alternative explanations for why the climate changes (other than AGW orthodoxy). AGW skeptics are often called "deniers" for the similar reason of denigrating theme for refusing to believe the orthodoxy.
    jeffreypmorton@...