Your Chamber of Commerce at Work

Posted by Paul Decelles August 26, 2009 at 11:17 a.m.

The LA times reports that the Chamber of Commerce has come up with a novel approach to stop proposed EPA regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant- hold a trial.

According to the article, Chamber officials are comparing the proposed trial to the "Scopes Trial" of evolution fame. That is unfortunate, because in the Scope's trial, the state won the technical point that Scopes was guilty of violating state law as it stood at the time, but no science was settled there.

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

Actually the better trial comparison is with Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial where Johnson attempts to poke holes in evolution using the sorts of rhetorical tricks and judicious evidence cherry picking lawyers use to cast "reasonable doubt" as to the guilt or innocence of a particular party. Of course the universe must not have been listening since evolution just keeps on happening and the intelligent Design movement he spawned has shown itself to be scientifically sterile.

So science really is not advanced by this sort of shenanigan, which after all is all about rhetoric rather than what ought to be our policy toward, say, carbon dioxide.

The whole thing is tied to another report I encountered this morning about another important issue, namely health care.

The article, Health Care Debate Based on Lack of Logic, discusses some of the issues that cloud our ability to think about complex policy issues.

What I found really interesting is the finding that often people who are less certain in their beliefs fail to look at opposing "perspectives". This sounds directly applicable to lots of other complex issues as well.

Another interesting point the article makes is that the sort of town hall format that politicians love, tends to harden people's positions rather than enabling some sort of consensus. Now granted, I think we people and organizations should, air their concerns about public issues, but are Town Hall meetings and show trials the way to do it?

The evidence suggests no, and I believe the Chamber ought to carefully rethink how it presents business's quite legitimate concerns with the proposed EPA regulations of carbon dioxide emissions. If the Chamber isn't careful, it might just end up with credibility on par with tobacco industry with respect to the health risks of smoking.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Marion,

Well OK, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.
August 26, 2009 at 4:14 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

As government and politicians and people's opinions invade science, everything becomes more complicated.

Health-care isn't science, its economics, and distribution of service. Its politics. Global warming isn't science, can't be tested. It too is a football kicked around with the intent of forming arguments that stir the political pot.

Complication is very important in politics. The more confusing and sophisticated, the more everything becomes obfuscated. This is the intent of political leaders. It is a powerful tool to obfuscate. If the murky situation is created by politicians, they have knowledge that the general population doesn't have.

Science should be just the opposite. Deconstruction, categorizing, organizing, and the rationalization of the world is at least one part of all science. Not so politics.

Alas, the conflation of science and government has rendered modern science a race for political power and bad things happen. Like health-care debates being associated with science. Like tax schemes and power shifts based upon UN reports by ministers from governments around the world.

Science that has no direct material engineering branch is dangerous stuff. When the only fruitful application of a science is the swaying of opinion, or some social engineering application, look out....here come the senators and the ministers.

Paul, I am surprised that you might think that there is any science in the health-care debate. Evolution is now debated in an origins context that is very non-science as well

Whether man is an ape, or fell from the sky is unimportant to anybody except in a social context. Who pays for aunt Millie's insulin shot is not science either. Social power, Paul. It is the most important criterion in our world today.
___________________________________
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, only if you win the debate and gain the social status and power associated with the victory. If you need to redefine science, fine, relax the rules of evidence and test. If you need to relax the concept of reality, fine, become a social constructivist.
So long as you hold the cards. So long as you control the discussion. So long as you remain in charge, you win. Science is now about winning. Thus, the chamber of commerce is just as valid a source of information as the AMA or the Worden school of economics. Sad situation isn't it.
August 27, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

driedherb: Jeff Masters, Jim Hansen, Fred Singer, Benny Peiser, AlGore, and on and on and on.

They don't know.

Nobody knows and science will not tell them. You can't hold a variable fixed and run the climate. You can't control any variable and see what happens to the other variables each as a cause, or effect.

So they run computer models. Models are mathematical abstractions whose credibility is oversold. The world is much more nonlinear, non-stochastic, and chaotic than each of the above would have you believe.

So sit back, light yer cigar, live a life and don't worry about any of it.

Unless they want to take yer money. Then scream and kick and tell them to bugger off. Life is good if you don't worry about original sin. You didn't ask to be here. Just make the best of it.

Oh, AGW original sin is the fact that you breath in CO2 at about .04% of the air, and breath out about 4% CO2. That's a 100 times the input, you sinner you.
August 27, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Hi Devo,

You wrote:
"Paul, I am surprised that you might think that there is any science in the health-care debate. Evolution is now debated in an origins context that is very non-science as well"

My point was not about there being science in the health care debate but rather that this is an example of the sort of complex issue that people have problems dealing with. That is the parallel with the global warming issue.

Also I would take exception to the notion that the Health care issue does not involve science. Many of our problems are structural problems related to the demographics of our society and related to the efficacy or inefficacy of different treatments - these are definitely scientific matters.

As to the comment about evolution, I don't buy at all your contention that origins is "non scientific" unless you mean the intelligent design frame work. Now that is non scientific.

About your for your comment about CO2 0.04% in and 4% out, surely you jest to expect people to take that as a serious comment. Surely a savvy engineer can see the flaw in that one!

Regards my friend.

Paul
August 27, 2009 at 6:31 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Oregano,

I wasn't aware of the possible link between stratospheric cooling and global warming maybe the post you cite has some primary source literature to look at to help evaluate this claim.

But on the surface your argument:

"One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase. This will make recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer much slower."

...seems plausible. By the way I bet it's even testable!
August 27, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

The US Chamber of Commerce is busy coordinating the anti insurance refrom movement spending $1.4 million a day from a $100,000,000(million) pie. That same $100,000,000 could insure 519 familes a day or 17,000 families a month or 3,703,704 families total for one year of coverage under HR 676 Medicare Insurance for All.

Why is the Chamber of Commerce protecting and promoting the most expensive medical insurance in the world?

The most expensive medical insurance in the world does not keep business cost down and eats up revenue that could be used to put someone to work.

Creditibility eh?

Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
August 27, 2009 at 7:04 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Sure I know that, but groups like that love to pretend they have our interests at heart.
August 28, 2009 at 6:46 a.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

"As government and politicians and people's opinions invade science, everything becomes more complicated."

Hmm....sorta like saying guns are fine, it's people you have to worry about, right? Sad thing about guns, science and people, is that these days you can't keep 'em apart. And, by gum, didn't science help design that gun? And didn't science help design that prison that held that bad guy with that gun, and on and on?

Science is a tool for society to do what it wants, and society shapes what science studies. So science is used to get us into pickles and out of them too. The pandora's box has been opened on many fronts, and unless you have a better idea, we best use science to try to deal with the mess, unless you think we ought to limit our knowledge acquisition to mechanics--but wait a minute, we're back to that gun again, aren't we?
August 28, 2009 at 1:26 p.m.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…

Dried oregano and Paul,
Funny you talked about the ozone layer, and Science News is as well--check it out:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gener...
August 28, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Thanks Doug,

Interesting article. I hadn't seen this.

Particularly interesting is this quote from the article:

"That’s in stark contrast to N2O releases from processes fostered by human activity, such as the nitrogen fertilization of agricultural soils and fossil-fuel combustion. These anthropogenic emissions of the pollutant have been growing steadily, he says, to where they now boost atmospheric concentrations of N2O by roughly one percent every four years."

But of course some people would see this as alarm-ism. I don't think most people realize how close we came to ecological disaster with CFC's.
August 28, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
svenway_park (anonymous) says…

Driedoregano.... Isn't this the same same Driedoregano who lies about Freeman Dyson's writings as saying the Earth is running out of oxygen as a result of global warming?

Except that Dyson never said this. Dyson wrote about ocean oxygen levels. And Dyson's views of global warming are much different than what driedoregano implies by quoting him.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/may...

But does this stop driedoregano?

To quote one poster about this LTE: "[it] is sophomoric and idiotic and oversimplifies the CO2/O2 cycle, and lacks deeper understanding of physics and thermodynamics."

And we also know how regularly driedoregano (cool, ariadne, spiderman, coltrane, rusty2, etc) has intentionally lied, abused this forum, misled Lawrence taxpayers, his neighbors, and the courts. He personalizes self-interest, greed, and lack of community spirit.
August 29, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Hey Svenway,

Now play nicely and stick to the issues.

Also you might enjoy my take on Freeman Dyson at:

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/dange...

Regards,

P
August 29, 2009 at 5:52 p.m.