Subscription Center
Aug 25, 2009 03:30 PM | 46
In a bid to avoid regulations on the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to put the science of global warming on trial. "It would be evolution versus creationism," the chamber's William Kovacs, senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times.
In other words, the chamber hopes for a "Scopes monkey trial for the 21st century," referring to the famous 1925 court case that determined whether evolution could be taught in Tennessee (a battle that has broken out again in states like Texas). The chamber, which represents millions of U.S. businesses, is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set up a hearing to discuss the science behind that agency's move to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a threat to human health and therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
Should the agency fail to do so, the chamber is threatening to sue in federal court. (On what grounds remains unclear. Any lawyers out there?)
Of course, the chamber is ignoring other pending lawsuits revolving around climate change, such as the suit filed by the eroding Alaskan village of Kivalina against power producers for creating a "public nuisance" by contributing to the emission of millions of metric tons of greenhouse gases every year.
The Inupiat villagers of Kivalina are also charging that these companies conspired to create a false scientific debate—a conspiracy that seems to continue with fake letters to Congress paid for by coal companies, among other recent activities. And perhaps floating this idea is simply an attempt to gin up opposition to the regulatory move by the EPA via broad publicity.
But the chamber might do well to remember the outcome of the Scopes trial. Although the creationists won the court battle, they lost the culture war for a generation. As defense attorney Clarence Darrow quipped in that case: "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States," or for that matter its environmental policy.
Image: Courtesy of the Library of Congress
Tags:
trial,
chamber of commerce,
creationism,
climate change,
william jennings bryan,
scopes,
clarence darrow,
evolution,
global warming,
science
More News Blog:
Next: Will watermelon rejects be the next biofuel?
Previous: More than half of U.S. may get H1N1 this fall and winter, White House science panel says
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 Fibroids are 21st century women's medical bane >> @ForHarriet My Battle Fighting Fibroid Tumors http://t.co/0hKB4rZZpf …
sciammind Dogs and Cats in the Home: Happiness for All? http://t.co/DHKp99LyyR
Myrmecos Gut Check http://t.co/3ReF1JtAtn my mermithid nematode photo makes Popular Science.
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
46 Comments
Add CommentLet's scrub the entire atmosphere of all carbon dioxide so we can save the planet. Seems to have worked for Mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat idea. I'd love to see the eco-romantics have to stop waving their hands around and produce some real evidence instead of emotionally laden anecdotes about penguins/polar bears/glaciers/seals/whales etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe they'll even subpoena Al Gore and finally get to the bottom of this manbearpig thing.
So you two are taking the side of the "bigots and ignoramuses" then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvogtrj:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have any real evidence of man made global warming please post it.
Drawing an analogy between Creationism vs. Evolution and the debates around anthropomorphic global climate change is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CvsE debate is one about teaching religious doctrine vs verifiable scientific principles, facts and theories.
The debates on all sides of the climate change issue are over methodologies, studies, scientific processes and every other area of scientific endeavour involving the effect of humans on the global climate patterns.
It is not a religious debate. It is a healthy scientific debate. Politics clouds the issue enough already without conflating it with a religion vs. science meme.
Just like the CvsE debate, let's keep religion out of the laboratories, please?
Scott Bragg
There can be no proof of global warming caused by man because there is no proof. The proof of Climate Change is offered by science dating from the earliest records, and man has nothing to do with it. Never, ever and certainly not for the last 100 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not a religious debate except for the left. It is only for the love of money that some want to steal from the rest of us under the false guise of saving the planet.
Have a trial, several lawsuits and anything else that is necessary to stop this robbery in broad daylight. If we don't, the worlds economy and ours for sure will never recover.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Shoshin: Snort! You're either a Grade A dunce or are simply playing ego games for your own amusement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmall problem with your reasoning, Biello; in this case, the role of William Jennings Bryan will be played by Al Gore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people never learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say go ahead with the hearing. Assuming fair play by both parties (something I highly doubt given the nature of capitalist ventures), we could finally see a decisive end to this retarded debate and get on with the business of fixing our problems.
galaxy_man: I'm sort of with you on the idea, but the denialist strategy basically boils down to delay, delay, delay. The business interests keep making money while they avoid accountability, the "libertarian" argumentalists get to strut around enjoying the attention while actually hindering public understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Should the agency fail to do so, the chamber is threatening to sue in federal court. (On what grounds remains unclear. Any lawyers out there?)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who is advocating for massive taxes and a re-ordering of the world's economy based on a scientific theory.
I wonder why the author doesn't question the grounds of the Inupiat villagers of Kivalina suit. Are they including coal burners in India and China in their suit? It's just an attempted money grab.
What I don't understand about these Denialists is do they truly believe that our actions somehow apply to the planetary scale of time? A planet is slooow to change compared to our lifespans but it does change. There isn't "sufficient evidence" because there hasn't been sufficient time to reveal such evidence. The true repercussions of our environmental alterations may not be entirely present at the moment but they will come and when they do it will be too late to do much about it (see: feedback loop).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut even neglecting fire and brimstone, why the hell is it so difficult to take a no-regrets course of action rather than BANKING on the hope that maybe nothing will happen when we displace millions of tons of earth and put it in the sky?
Once again Scientific American has shown it has an agenda. Rather then supporting an honest debate on "Human Global Warming" they call it a "Monkey Trial". I am very disappointed in what was once an impartial chronicle. It's now become deaf to scientific debate and completely dismisses any reasonable disagreement with their own policies and opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again Scientific American has shown it has an agenda. Rather then supporting an honest debate on "Human Global Warming" they call it a "Monkey Trial". I am very disappointed in what was once an impartial chronicle. It's now become deaf to scientific debate and completely dismisses any reasonable disagreement with their own policies and opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long did it take for the public to accept that the earth was not flat? or that it was not the center of the earth? Has anyone stood beside a smoke stack while on the globe? Is it even possible to link humans Directly to global warming? (It is similar to ask what kills, a gun or the person who fired it? albeit at a much more tangible scale) If humans are not 100% at fault, are they 10%, 50%? Is it still our Problem? Can we push things in the other direction to save the ecosystems on which we depend?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "ignoramuses" think that scientific theory is another form of faith, and oddly enough point the greedy finger at those who are fighting for something more than fiscal. Personally, I'd rather have cleaner air and a healthier ground regardless of the more vital reasons. Having my doubts about humanity, and for the sake of what has evolved or what has been created, let the cockroaches eat themselves. We'll all go.
Shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you don't understand the proof does not mean it does not exist. And just because someone has a blog on the internet espousing your favourite theory does not make it true.
Atta boy, ben........ sock it to him with your Hard scientific facts. He'll never never be able to refute hard, put on the table proof like: """Shoshin: Snort! You're either a Grade A dunce or are simply playing ego games for your own amusement."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh the joys of science..........
Papa Ray,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you never heard of "The Church of Man The Cause of Global Warming", huh? It's got zillions of members. Not one of whom has ever done any climate change research themselves but who can always point you to "some scientist, somewhere" who says this or that or the other. To suggest that proper research should be done to determine man's role in global warming, IF ANY, is to blaspheme the doctrine of "If We Say Man Is Guilty - (don't confuse us with facts) - Man Is Guilty"!!
(Where do we pick up our government cheques?)
ben_lawson & rwilliston;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have any proof of man made global warming please post it. Any proof whatsoever.
Otherwise, I take your attacks on me as evidence of the vacuous, yawning lack of any evidence of man made global warming.
Let me clarify something for you. Climate change is part of the natural order and evolution of this planet; it always has been and always will be. Having a church of zealots wanting to "Fight Climate Change!" is as illogical as declaring war on the elements Helium, Silicon, Beryllium, or even, dare I say it?.... Carbon.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man made CO2 is affecting the global temperature in anything more than a irrelevantly miniscule manner, and further, basic physics dictates that the doubling of CO2 from 380 ppm to 760 ppm would produce even less irrelevant warming. Sorry zealots, but MMGW is physically impossible.
Makes for great copy on SCIAM, CNN, sells lots of memberships and is the greatest gig of all time for raising funds in Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club and lines Al Gore's pockets, makes Wall Street Carbon traders billions, but other than that, it is utter horse hockey.
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have spent a lot of time on this since it first got shoved in my face by a friend who was in tears about the "imminent end of mankind".
Every possible bit of evidence I have found, and it is a Lot! shows that every last thing you said in your comment is 100% accurate and factual. More PROPER research needs to be done to nail down the time-line of natural global warming for sure; but how these religious MMGWers are able to ignore the clear evidence of repeated Ice Ages (which implies warm periods between them) is beyond me. Mankind didn't even exist for most of those warming periods; the planet warmed up just fine, all by itself, thank you very much!
Sez Me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel sorry for your friend who got upset about this end of of the world hype. It reminds me of a buddy of mine in University who was so twisted around after his encounter with a Scientologist that it took a whole evening of deprogramming to convince him that he didn't need to join their church and waste his tuition and beer money on cosmic auditing.
kellyaf30,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot entirely sure which side you're on here, but your reference of the "earth is flat" theory applies to this debate. At one time, the earth being flat had the distintion of being "settled science", a term oft applied to Global Warming.
I believe that global warming isn't entirely man's fault. My view is that we're nearing the middle of an interglacial period of an ice age. That accounts for about 55% of global warming. The other 45% is caused mostly by humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas far as i am concerned the jury is still out. you all remember how surprised i was to find the Big Bang Theory in the book of Genesis. seems as if the Sahara is enjoying the experience
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a New Zealander really applaud USA Chanber of Commerce challenging the gross nonsense of human caused climate change/global warming. Necessary to check out Physics evidence- atmospheric radiation and absorption. Most supporters of the Chicken Little theory ignore the above and many other inconvenient truths. Recommended sites www.brneurosci.org . The New Zealnd Climate Science Coalition
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you - Peter
Grasshopper1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got the right idea, but where did you get your percentages from?
The best info I can get says between 3% and 10% man caused CO2 in our atmosphere, with the majority being around the 3% to 5% level. Now this is only for CO2. And to date there is still no hard evidence that CO2 is definitely a cause of GW. Apparently there are other potential causes, having nothing to do with mankind, which the MMGW crowd just will not even consider.
Their minds are made up and they will not allow themselves to be distracted by facts; nor will they support proper research. They already "know" that they are right and delight in take great delight in tagging anyone who questions their conclusions with the name "denier". No doubt a highly "scientific" position.
way down here in New Zealand, we don't seem to have contracted Global Warming/Climate Change yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do tend to be a few decades behind the rest of the world.
However I have some fruit trees that in the past 10 years or so , have begone to grow lichen on their bark
I have lived in the same place for over 40 years, and in the town for 70 years, and I have noticed that we don't have the hot summers and droughts that we had around 50-60 years ago.
The clay soil on my section used to crack open during the dry summer time, but it hasn't done that for a few years now.
Also our capital city of Wellington in 2007 had the coldest winter since records began somewhere around 1920.
All of this makes me a real Skeptic about the alleged Warming.
I realise that you enthusiasts for warming have developed a religious fervour about it.
As for your advocate Al Gore, well I haven't believed any Politician for years.He is however getting richer by selling books and going on speaking tours to rouse the believers.
Peace be with you all.
Feel free to insult me , if it will make you happy.
Is this really the conversation? Are there really people out there who READ Scientific American and yet still think that global warming is a hoax?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo believe that people legitimately want to make money off of convincing people that humans are slowly causing the destruction of the planet in order to get them to be taxed? And then what? Oh yeah, greenpeace is doing REALLY well now that they've convinced the scientific community that we're destroying our planet. Mwahahaha! Now all they have to do is wait, and the cash from all of the world's economies will be there's for the taking!
Or how about you take a step back, and do some research into global warming. Try looking through scientific journals, not pseudo-science magazines. Now here's a search you'll never complete, find a PEER-REVIEWED journal article that states that man-made global warming is a hoax, or is not real. The consensus of the legitimate scientific community is that it is real. The argument is over how much damage we're causing. Hell, take an environmental economics class, and the statistics are overwhelming. The carbon ppm is currently greater than any other time within several hundreds of thousands of years. And there is a KNOWN link between temperature and carbon ppm. Frankly, don't bother citing that your city's coldest year on record was recently. That's not scientific disproof of global warming, that's anecdotal evidence.
Maybe you should do some scientific research before you come babbling on the comments section. You sound just as foolish as the people you hate so much (the Al Gore's, the greenpeace hippies, and whoever else you think is purposely trying to ruin the economy).
Spoonsx21 at 09:39 PM on 08/28/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that any view that differs from yours is babbling, foolish etc.
You would make a good politician - absolutely intolerant .
Any view that differs from years of proven science IS babbling/foolish, I would hope that you agree on that. I mean if I questioned the legitimacy of gravity, I would want you to call me foolish. Maybe instead of attacking the messenger, you should focus on disproving the message? If you have an issue with what I'm saying, please, disagree and provide some counter examples. It's all too easy to see fault in a single person. That's why scientific ideas aren't based on people, they're based on RESEARCH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Spoonsx21,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA history lesson for you.
Back in 1922,(yes 1922) the US Weather Service , issued a statement that the Arctic ice was melting, the Arctic would soon be ice free, and glaciers receding , just like 87 years later.
Then we had a cooling scare, and and a heating one etc.
In the 1970s there was a proven heating event , with computers showing that it was genuine .
If this present heating thing turns out to be true , it will be like the story of the boy who cried "Wolf" all the time.
This current prediction of doom is mainly computer modelling and from what I have read the data going in is really not too reliable. There are now fewer weather stations than in previous decades , for example in the former USSR.
I will go and get some more interesting items , in case you want to carry on with this discussion .
Bye for now
I really can't stand flame wars so can we take it down a notch and have a respectful conversation? We are all armchair scientists here (I suspect) and maybe we can meet halfway to better understand each other's and even our own viewpoint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll start by asking some questions of those of you who are passionately against the idea of man-made global warming and I would appreciate respectful answers that do not condemn or insult. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
:
What effects of the recent actions that assume global warming do you find negative? I've seen someone mention carbon trading as another way for the rich to get richer. Maybe someone can explain that better to me as I don't understand exactly.
Also, how do you feel about investment in alternative energy sources that would lower global carbon emissions? What are your thoughts on current practices of coal strip-mining and nuclear power waste handling?
and finally How do you feel about the United States' abnormally low vehicular emission and efficiency standards?
Do you disagree with efforts to lower carbon emissions or do you only resent the popular belief of man-made global warming?
JGahn:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole debate has been hijacked by Big Climate( $126 billion in carbon trading in 2008) , which now dwarfs any real economic activity on the planet and now has an understandably vested interest in perpetuating the myth of man made global warming.
Firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant, but having it labelled as one is vital to trading credits; if it wasn't a dangerous pollutant, no one would buy into the notion of trading it.
Secondly, many people on this website and many others possess such a poor understanding of science that they fail to see the distinction between cause and effect and mistakenly believe that correlation equates to causality. The oft trumpeted anecdotal evidence of icebergs/ice sheets/polar bears/penguins or whatever is the species of the week all miss the central point; they are EFFECTS of a warming climate and speak nothing as to cause. In the case of sinking deltas , it is man's tampering with river drainage, damming and engineering that causes these effects on a very local scale yet invariably, these sinking deltas are held up as effects of global warming. Utter garbage.
Thirdly, so far, I'm still unsure as to what the ultimate cause of the planet's periodic warming and cooling is, and I don't feel bad about not knowing, that's the way science is; sometimes you just don't know. But there are other things that I do know, and one is that the laws of physics dictate that it is physically impossible for CO2 to be anything other than an insignificant and distractive sideshow in climate change.
Concentrating on CO2 is a massive waste of time, energy and resources that are vitally needed to fight poverty, provide clean drinking water
Very respectfully - because many who post here are far more educated on this subject than I - I ask: What is the "proper or normal" temperature of the planet? Before we worry too much about whether man is causing the climate to heat up or cool down, we need to know what it should be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt what time in history was the global temperature "normal"? What caused it to change? It is difficult to prove that the global temperature is higher than it should be if what it should be has not been identified.
@Not2Old2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would say that most people here understand that global temperatures are constantly in a state of flux and that there is a certain amount of natural global warming. I think you are correct in your statement that we can't really say that things are higher than they should be. I think that the fear is that our actions are accelerating an already natural part of the Earth's behavior. If that is true then the problem is that everything ON the Earth may not have sufficient time to adapt to what may be an unnaturally rapid change in their respective environments. To express my own feelings, it is better to be safe than sorry on the matter of whether or not our actions would contribute to an acceleration in climate change.
@Shoshin
Still not quite as respectful as I would have liked, thank you for expressing yourself. I would be very interested in a source that you learned about the physical impossibility of more than negligible climate change caused by human beings.
I still am curious if you believe that some other impacts of the current popular climate change attitude are negative. I think most people who are okay with the idea of man-made climate change even when presented with an incomplete picture is that they definitely don't believe that carbon emission is good or even harmless with respect not only to climate change and that a global dilemma can spur us into a renewed effort towards efficiency and good design. I think the most positive aspect of the global warming and environmental debate is that we are being forced to rethink our unlimited resources/time and that we can begin to design our lives with intelligence rather than the excesses that we have been presented with for the past 40 years.
The chamber of commerce is a front for those hand full of corporations that pollute the environment for profit. There is nothing to be proved here. It is widely and universally accepted by scientists and scientific organizations around the globe that global warming is a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who still doubts belongs to the same group of people who still doubt our president's citizenship.
Hmm, a debate, well and good. But, these issues can be technically challenging and a face-to-face debate does not lend itself well to such issues. We could have a written exchange, where each side gets to carefully review and poke holes in what the other side. Oh, wait, that's already been going on for, mmm, 50-100 years, depending on how you measure. The problem is that the details of the issue have gone beyond common tractability and so there are those who don't understand that the basic question of whether man is defecating in his own bed with the burning of fossils has already been settled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust get on http://scholar.google.com/ , search for climate change, and start reading. You might want to use a random sampling strategy; there are over 1.6 million hits.
As a scientific fact the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is far to small to cause any effect on global temperature and a doubling would greatly improve the biomass production of the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor over 50 years I have studied how to solve problems and make things better for everyone. I have seen all kinds of doomsday pronouncements, generally based on incompleat understanding of all of the facts, and all kinds of wonderful solutions that don't stand up to the real world.
As a machinic and electrician I love wind machines and solar power systems. But I know as a matter of fact they can not supply the amount of energy needed for our civilization. Some people want to reduce us all to stone age level to save the planet, I want to raise all to our level and I know that it is possiable. Those that think wind, solar, wave, sea currents etc. can solve the energy needs obviously have never built and operated such things of any real size under real world conditions. That only leaves large hydro, fueled plants and fission power. 50 years ago my opinion was plasma fusion was a waste of time and money, and that is still my opinion. Even GOD does not use plasma fusion to power the universe. Go study all the facts and not just the ones you like. Modern fission plants are the only solution to the problem at this time and in the forseeable future. Solid state or cold fusion might be the solution in the future.
For those that argue that the problem can solved by energy conservation don't have the actual facts, While conservation helps, all of the real gains have all ready been made. Actually Americans have the highest output per energy unit of any people.
ha ha, interesting, but not unexpected, my comments got deleted. don't worry, i won't be back to the kiddie science mag.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy bad, entered my comments in the wrong box... multi-tasking is not only stupid, but inefficient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is no global warming, santa claus is real, money grows on trees. putting science aside, which it seems you have done, and thinking logically:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisour atmosphere is 15 miles thick, we have been continuously pumping pollutants into throughout the industrial age world-wide. Do you really think that there would be no effect?
we scrubbed all the CO2 out of the martian atmosphere? i missed that one. When did we do it? I guess that's why there are no martians on mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those that haven't had time to keep up with the facts. Global warming ended 7 years ago and global cooling is the new buz word, come on kiddies pay attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee Shoshin brings up an interesting point. There is money in climate change, this is unfortunately true. However, there is much more money in convincing congress that climate change is a hoax. MUCH MUCH more money. Right now corporations who produce any amount of carbon dioxide pay ZERO dollars for the right to produce a ton of carbon dioxide. If instead they had to pay roughly 80 dollars per ton of carbon dioxide (which is on the low end of what the environmental economists believe the cost per ton should be), then the 5.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide produced each year in the US would cost the corporations a combined 464 billion dollars EACH YEAR. Hence the even larger desire to perpetuate the idea that global warming is a hoax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am a simple india med dr , a jesu man. Dunt you see CREATION FIRST, and EVOLUTION FOLLOWING till now and into future ? For my simple mind there IS compromise. i was in vietnam frontlines seen death as volunteer 1969-74. in india and zambia jungle clearings i have watched the endless milkyway and the conStellations going round and round. the bubbly earth gases at Nikko . the smoke over Tagaytay. many of you have done so and much better. i felt one with the cosmic mighty primordeal energy which CREATED all this and the endless Galaxies beyond. from that EVOLVED me and all things around me over trillions of ages. a sperm and egg ,( who placed all the complex nuclear info in them?) CREATE the zygote. and from thence EVOLVES the fetus . The surface of the earth is constantly producing killer gases, and also the life oxygen. Air is 70% CO2. The O2 16% is there to sustain us.All the poison gases we are worried about is brought out by factories for our own life style needs. Does LIFE really need coffee, cocoa, tea, sugar, alcohol, TOBACCO, 3 times animal foods, snack junk foods, transport to offices just 3-5 km away, and so on? but we are used to all this ever since someone ages ago hunted and slaughtered... .........Yet all is good but we force ourselves to extreme excesses. Even without greenhouse gases the earth has been changing. So if you see the polar caps melting and oceans rising and all such nature phenomenon ,keep cool and pray to the divine forces someone started calling 'G O D' . remembering that every atom in and out of us in the vast endless universes carries the spark of that al-mighty power energy . Greenhouse gases CAN be tackled subdued compromised by you wise scientific and pious persons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Chamber to Commercialize"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSr. V.P. Willie Kovacs' "Monkey Trial"?
Who called for Willie's "Monkey Trial"?
("If monkeys see, can monkeys do?")
The Chamber to Commercialize
CO2 Up the Kazoo.
"Let monkeys burn what monkeys dig.
Let monkeys make a killing.
Never pass a law that monkeys
don't find self-fulfilling."
Willie and his lobby sold
their souls to Dirty Coal,
Who'll let our coastal cities flood
if they can profit from a hole
In the mountains, in the prairies,
wherever monkeys choose to dig
So they can wallow in their wealth.
These monkeys live to make it big.
Their lobby seeks a "Monkey Trial"
to stall the EPA,
But will Willie's monkeys mourn
when Wall Street's washed away?
Let's say they get their trial and lose,
and Willie gets the axe.
With Wall Street under water,
"Sayonara, Goldman Sachs."
How ironic to lose Blankfein
and his Bonus Baby crew
To the Chamber to Commercialize
CO2 Up the Kazoo.
Bob Carlson
www.politicalboondoggles.com
9/29/09
To 'Lobbyists'
To 'Dirty Coal'
To 'Goldmaqn's Blankfein'
To 'Climate change on trial?'