BPSDBOthers are comparing this story to the famous Tennessee Scopes trial on the teaching of evolution. There are very good reasons to suggest that it has far more in common with the Soviet show trials of dissident scientists.
The bare bones of the story is that the U.S Chamber of Commerce (hereafter CoC) would like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter EPA) to hold public hearings on climate science.
Incredibly, the CoC wants “‘Scopes’-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.” For those who are not familiar with it, the “Scopes” reference is to the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” where school teacher John Scopes was put on trial in Tennessee for illegally teaching Evolution science .
The EPA is dismissive of the petition, particularly as the basis for it are the usual collection of climate change Denier idiocies such as “climate change has stopped.” For more on those details and further analysis see here and the links at bottom.
Now many commenters (see below) have pointed out the irony of the CoC quite accurately identifying themselves as the force of regressive scientific ignorance seeking to use a hearing to attempt to undermine scientific progress and the general social good. The candor of the admission is almost breathtaking. Up to that point the analogy is accurate, and given the comic nature of it most commenters are only too happy to run with that.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “US Chamber of Commerce Wants “Scopes …”, posted with vodpod
The first point I would make is that the choice of analogy by the CoC is probably more calculated than comic. They know they need at least some base of public support for this, and the overlap between the evolution Deniers and climate change Deniers is extensive. Progressives and the scientifically literate would ridicule the CoC no matter what they called it, whereas Regressives will see the “Scopes Trial” as a rallying cry on a par with Bunker Hill or The Alamo.
Second, where the analogy breaks down is that the Scopes Monkey trial was about the violation of a particular law regarding the teaching of evolution science within the Tennessee school system. Certainly the Creationists hoped to use the trial to discredit Evolution science as much as possible through the court process, but that was not the actual issue of the trial itself. The issue before the court was whether John Scopes had taught evolution.
Of the accounts I have read only Island of Doubt has also seen a much 
darker side to this, equating the proposal to the McCarthy era hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. A better anology to be sure. It certainly brings in the elements of ideologically motivated hysteria, the callous disregard for truth, and the pursuit of injustice for personal gain and ambition. Those are also key factors in this current proposal. Where it still falls short is that the HUAC hearings themselves were still about the actions of individuals, not the question of what is scientific truth.
In this case however, “It would be the science of climate change on trial.” according to said William Kovacs, the CoC’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. Neither the Scopes Trial nor the HUAC hearings are appropriate analogies for that. A far more accurate analogy would be the Stalinist show trials of scientists who disputed so-called “socialist science.” Science itself was on trial then, just as the CoC hopes to do now.
Briefly, one of the elements of the Soviet effort to create a new society was “socialist science“, the pursuit of science in ways that were more in line with Soviet ideology. There was socialist physics, socialist medicine, etc. Unfortunately reality had not read Marx and as a result real science was sometimes not in line with socialist science. Scientists who insisted on siding with reality were put on trial and either imprisoned or executed.
More irony: evolution was a particular sore point for the Soviets. All of that Darwinian competition and survival of the fittest through the inheritance of genes smacked of Western Capitalism. Instead Trofim Lysenko, director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences offered Lysenkoism. This was a form of evolution whereby organisms acquired new characteristics through the much more politically acceptable mechanism of individual striving. It was by trying harder to reach tall branches over many generations that a giraffes neck grew longer, not decadent competition and inheritance.
This is the vision that the CoC has, a political trial to ensure that there is ideologically pure “science” that conforms to their beliefs. Like Lysenko, they want to declare reality to be subservient to “commercialist science.” Scientists and agencies who disagree are to be put on trial.
To be sure I do not imagine that any at the CoC intend to imprison or execute anybody, nor even fine them $100 as John Scopes was. Rather this would appear to be a tactical move where they simply hope to further delay anything being done about climate (see here and here), just as the tobacco industry did (more parallels). Even so, if you’ll allow just a bit more history, the parallels and irony run much deeper.
Needless to say Lysenkoism was every bit as fraudulent as climate Denierism, and when applied to agricultural sciences failed to produce the crop yields desperately needed to deal with the famines of the 20’s, 30’s and the war years. As a consequence many starved to death who might otherwise have lived.
Climate change is already affecting millions, and we expect that if we do not act now that hundreds of millions more will die of starvation (see here, here, here and here). The CoC may not be intending to have anyone executed, but they are condemning millions to death if they succeed in causing any significant delay in action.
One of the most prominent victims of persecution by the Soviets was the famed geneticist Nikolai Vavilov. Arrested and imprisoned for insisting that facts were facts and you could not bend reality to ideological whims, he died of malnutrition in prison.
So great were his scientific contributions that certain areas that were important centers of evolution and diversity, particularly of agricultural crops, are called “Vavilov Centers” in his honour. These centres of diversity circle the globe largely in the regions that we expect to become deserts if climate change continues unchecked. Vavilov died because of political interference by dogmatic ideologues, now Vavilov Centres may perish at their hands as well.
So no, this is not some court case where one man may be fined $100 for his defiance of religous inspired law. Nor is it even some hearings where the lives of hundreds, even thousands are ruined because of ideological hysteria and personal ambition.
What the Deniers propose here is a Stalinist style political show trial where scientific truth itself is to be judged as anti-capitalist and not in accord with “commercialist science”, and the fate of millions hangs in the balance.
For more information and different perspectives on this story, see
- Memo to Alcoa, Kodak, IBM, Nike, Pepsi, Toyota et al.: Luddite U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” on global warming
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce files for EPA climate disruption trial (updated)
- Climate “Scopes” Trial: The Chamber Makes A Monkey Of Itself
- US Chamber of Commerce calls for ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ on climate
- The ‘Voice Of Business’ Calls For ‘Scopes Monkey Trial
- Matthew Yglesias » Chamber of Commerce Wants to Put Evolution on Trial
- Chamber Of Commerce Planning ‘All-Out Lobbying Effort …
- ‘Monkey Trial’ Petition Tells EPA To ‘Eliminate The …
- The Climate Post: a climate for monkey business
This warming trend has been particularly pronounced during the pre-monsoon month of May, which is now on average 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in the late 1970’s. The Indian Ocean warmed to a much lesser extent during this period, enhancing the temperature gradient between the ocean and the land. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 304 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Soviet incarnation of evil – Stalin by Carlinhos.
Lysenko with Stalin from Wikipedia
Nikolai Vavilov from Wikipedia
Vavilov-center from Wikipedia
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Argh! I don’t like it when people compare other people to Stalin, so please don’t do that.
And, comparing the US Chamber of Commerce to Stalin is giving the Chamber too much credit. This is more like a high school debate where (in all likelihood) the judge will be a lolcat and the audience will consist of screaming yahoos.
— bi
—-
OK, but inactivists such as Monckton also argue similarly by talking about how Al Gore and James Hansen are killing zillions of brown people. I still think bringing in Stalin like this is a bad idea.
— bi
—-
Sounds like a nice idea.
— bi
—-
IIRC, according to one book I read on the trial Scopes never taught evolution, so they convicted an innocent man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Monkey_Trial
—-
Are you saying the Scopes trial had no value to the evolution debate? [1] Are you saying the climate debate should stop…we know enough? [2]
—-
Ray:
Oh darn, and I thought the US Chamber of Commerce’s stated purpose of wanting the show trial was to reach a “decision” — i.e. to end the ‘debate’!
Or perhaps they want to be able to reach a “decision” — and then promptly ignore it, so that the ‘debate’ can continue.
— bi
—-
Yes the debate rages within the scientific community and they are learning more every day. I want that information exposed the the public unmolested by you or Joe Romm etal. [1]
A debate or hearing under oath would allow the public audience a much more accurate presentation of facts [2] than the sloppy news bites we are currently fed. Which is good, knowing public perception of the issue will have an impact on whether cap and trade should be passed.
I agree the COC’s action is political but its not a farce when they are fighting action that will be a detriment to their (our) livelyhood. [3]
—-
[…] Greenfyre wrote a blog entry in which he compared the US Chamber of Commerce’s call for a mock…. I commented that this is probably a bad idea, because we ourselves don’t like it when, say, […]
This certainly is a lame stunt by the Chamber of Commerce that I backfired simply by their own comparison to the Scopes trial. Just desserts, particularly since their website says that: “The Chamber agrees that climate change is a risk that must be managed….”
Presumably the hope was to delay an “endangerment finding” by the EPA, which will trigger regulation, and the threat of which is being used as a tool to force legislative action on carbon pricing in Congress. But the request of a trial-like hearing is ununsual and the EPA has ample grounds to reject it, and to issue the endangerment finding, as libertarian lawyer Jonathan Adler noted months ago:
“Even if one doubts the accumulated scientific evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and that climate change is a serious environmental concern, the standard of review is such that the EPA will have no difficulty defending its rule. Federal courts are extremely deferential to agency
assessments of the relevant scientific evidence when reviewing such determinations. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator need only “reasonably . . . anticipate” in her own “judgment” that GHG emissions threaten public health and welfare in order to make the findings, and there is ample evidence upon which the
EPA Administrator could conclude that climate change is a serious threat. This is a long way of saying that even if climate skeptics are correct, the EPA has ample legal authority to make the endangerment findings. …
“Regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will not be a particularly cost-effective way to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA and White House understand this, but they also recognize that, under Massachusetts v. EPA, the agency does not have much choice. Moreover, the threat of Clean Air Act regulations on greenhouse gases will create significant pressure upon Congress to replace such regulation with some alternative, such as the cap-and-trade program. I suspect this is one reason the Administration has not complained too much about Congress refusal to embrace
cap-and-trade in the budget. It’s okay to set climate policy aside now, they could reckon, as there will be significantly more political pressure to act on the issue later. Perhaps by then there will also be greater political willingness to consider alternatives to cap-and-trade.”
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_12-2009_04_18.shtml#1240072108
Thank you for that.
As a non-American I was having trouble understanding what this is all about, and your post (and the link) have helped me a lot.
—-
I understand Frankbi’s reaction. I’ve had it myself
At the same time, pragmatics requires that we learn to examine history.
The (social) climate within which Stalinist atrocities occurred involved fear, suspicion and survival. Stalinist propaganda and self-presentation did not match reality to the point of outrageously fictitious appeals: the population was being killed, yet were being told to see that officials and the government cared about them.
The elements of propaganda are not dissimilar from one historical period to the next.
We must learn to examine this.
Posts like this one, however, need to introduce such an examination carefully and be fully sensitive to the emotional force of a word, such as ‘Stalinist’, that includes the specific horrors done to specific people at a specific time.
—-
Leader-solicited responses from whomever with respect to decisions to be made can become routine exercises, especially if the leader regularly seeks guidance from the same group of trusted advisors, or from those who are too intimidated by power disparities to offer honest views. ,
[…] powerful potential allies. Industry itself is quite divided on the issue as has been seen in the US Chamber of Commerce debacle. The Chamber itself has taken a Denier stance, but this has alienated quite a number of large […]