Chamber of Commerce admits calling for ‘the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’ was inappropriate.
Chamber of Commerce admits calling for ‘the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’ was inappropriate.
Last week the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the industry federation that calls itself the “voice of business,” called for a “trial on the science of climate change” that would act as “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” in order to discredit scientific studies about global warming. Now, Bill Kovacs, the Chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs who originally called for the trial, has admitted that it was “inappropriate” to use the Scopes analogy:
My “Scopes monkey” analogy was inappropriate and detracted from my ability to effectively convey the Chamber’s position on this important issue.
Commenting on Kovacs’ original comments last week, Brenda Ekwurzel, a researcher for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the Chamber’s campaign against climate change is like the Salem witch trials — “based on myth.” As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has noted, even though a court found Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes guilty of teaching evolution, the state supreme court overturned the verdict on a technicality. The anti-evolution movement lost steam (before being reborn as “intelligent design“) and science textbooks with biblical quotations were phased out. (HT: EnviroKnow)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I don’t remember the source of the quote (anyone?) but this always pleases me:
“Intelligent Design is neither.”
September 1st, 2009 at 11:39 amAsked for comment, The Union of Un-Concerned Scientists said “meh”.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am“the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century”
- – The wingnuts can’t understand why a monkey was put on trial unless the monkey insisted he was related to man.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:45 amIt’s time to phase out lobbying from the Chamber of Commerce.
They represent huge corporate interests, not Main St. business.
They’re the people always claiming ‘that bill will hurt small business’, while actually supporting behemoths that could give a shit about someone on Main St.
If evolution is a myth, the Nat’l. Chamber of Commerce is a LIE.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:46 amCORRECTION : “Now, Bill Kovacs, the Chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs”
should read;
Now, Bill Kovacs, the Chamber’s senior vice president against the environment, cheap technology and commerce regulations”
September 1st, 2009 at 11:50 amAll I have to say to the Creationists.. sorry.. to the proponents of Intelligent Design… My Karma ran over your Dogma
September 1st, 2009 at 11:50 amThe usual suspects co-opting peoples fears…hohum
September 1st, 2009 at 11:52 amREAL CORRECTION NEEDED IN THE POST:
WRONG–called for a “trial on the climate of science change”
September 1st, 2009 at 11:53 amJust remember that ANY time you see that the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce” is chiming in on something, you can be assured that they,
…are against working Americans…against anything that benefits (in any way, shape or form) working Americans.
And, are for anything that benefits corporate crooks, thieves and liars.
Period.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:54 amActually, calling for a Scopes Trial on climate change is a good idea. Consider the parallels:
The Scopes Trial was brought by people with no scientific credentials. (US CoC… Check)
The Scopes Trial was conducted in a backwoods area with a friendly audience. (This on could be conducted in Sedalia, Mo, where locals caused the ban of band T-shirts which used evolution as its graphic theme.)
I think the Chamber is on to something.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pmoldfuzz said:
>I think the Chamber is on to something.
I think the Chamber is on something.
Fixed.
:-D
September 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pmReal forward thinking bunch there at the Chamber…
At least their dues payers can rest assured they’re really getting their money’s worth…
September 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pmOh, Myth…!
September 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pmAnd then, after the good people of Tennessee have ‘proven’ that global warming is a hoax, they can go on to strike down the Laws of Thermodynamics and what not.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pmPresumably, by Scopes Monkey trial they meant a trial where the judge, jury, and verdict are already fixed in their favor and a trial just as a celebration of their position!!!
September 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm“Intelligent Design is neither.”
September 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am
Dawkins, I think…Indeed, if there is an “intelligent designer,” it is likely the first microscopic biome, the microbe…Everything that esists today esists because it supports the astronomically HUGE population of microbes on the planet, the first forms of life…
September 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pmFunny how Kovacs never actually admits what the Chamber’s “position on this important issue” is. I guess it isn’t popular to admit that your organization’s entire goal is to bully or bribe whoever controls the government to allow your members to steal everything that isn’t bolted down and to ensure that the court system is closed to anyone who challenges your theft.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pmSince when is the Chamber of Commerce composed of scientists and science experts?
A lot of those clowns can’t even run businesses correctly.
The Chamber has devolved into a self-congratulatory fraternity of oligarch-worshipping brownnoses.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pmMaybe someone with a little intelligence pointed out that the Scopes trial was the beginning of the end for the creationist credo as related to the public education system. It showed the entire country just how ludicrous the whole idea was and to what lengths the religious types would go to.
Darwin helped establish the process, Scopes furthered it. So bring on the trial. Send in the clowns.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pmI don’t know – I kinda think a media circus like this would be a good thing. It’s about time the climate science community got their asses in gear and learned how to do a better job selling the science to the idiotic American public, and this trial could be a perfect forum.
Right now the scientists, with all the reams of data and facts on their side, are not putting together a cohesive and simple message understandable by John Q. Public and Jane P. Moron. Whereas the Heartland Institute and their legions of science deniers have a slick, polished, high-tech operation to introduce “reasonable doubt” into the already settled science.
There needs to be a good, trustable, apolitical scientific voice of reason to set the public straight. Gore’s too political and Hansen’s too controversial. If only we could reanimate Carl Sagan – we really need him right now.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pmHoodathunk says:
Maybe someone with a little intelligence pointed out that the Scopes trial was the beginning of the end for the creationist credo as related to the public education system. It showed the entire country just how ludicrous the whole idea was and to what lengths the religious types would go to.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
___________________
And a century later, only 26% of Americans believe that life evolved over time through natural selection. A whopping 63% believe in young-Earth creationism, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution, or some other ridiculousness, and the rest just don’t know. And nearly 2/3rds of Americans believe Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science class.
If the Scopes trial was the “beginning of the end,” we must be watching the Peter Jackson directors’ cut, cause this ending is taking a long-ass time.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:16 pmIf the Scopes trial was the “beginning of the end,” we must be watching the Peter Jackson directors’ cut, cause this ending is taking a long-ass time.
We sort of had a set back the last generation. The fundies.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pmHoodathunk says:
We sort of had a set back the last generation. The fundies.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
_____________
True- there’s been a recent resurgence, but the anti-science forces have been hard at work since right after Tennessee v. Scopes concluded. They kept pushing through state anti-evolution laws until they were all struck down by Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968. Once the prohibition route was closed, they then turned their attention to “creation science” and in the 70s and 80s began proposing alternate “theories” to be taught alongside evolution. Intelligent Design was the next iteration of this idiocy. And now they’re using the “only a theory” tactic, trying to discredit evolution if they can’t outright ban it.
This setback isn’t recent. It’s been building momentum for several generations – it’s just now that we’re seeing the tip of the anti-science iceberg, I fear.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm‘the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’?
Someone fell asleep before inherit the wind came to an end.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:39 pmI think that’s a perfectly apt description.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:43 pmSince we’re on the topic of the Scopes trial I recomend people look into William Jennings Bryan before writing him off as nothing more than Pat Robertson’s forrunner. It’s not that I agree with his take on the Scopes trial but from what I can gather he was in fact a liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan
September 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pmThe Scope Monkey Trial statement wasn’t really inappropriate, just too close to the truth. The Chamber of Commerce is bizarrely taking the anti-science side in this dispute. It will be interesting to see if their members are happy with that stance. Evidently, they aren’t.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pmThe sole reason that the Chamber of Commerce exists is to advance the cause of corporatism. They are a Trojan Horse.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm*
#1 quote > you almost ‘had’ it, it’s actually.
“Intelligent Design is neither intelligent nor design.”
and, i have don’t have a source either.
here’s a great visual for evolution v creation ‘thinking’:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2630372569_75089e7c91_o.jpg
September 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pmGlobal Warming: Man or Myth – the Science of Climate Change
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states “Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter.”
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today’s warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 amvery thanks for article!
September 4th, 2009 at 10:35 am