The Trump administration will embrace a “red team, blue team” approach to climate science championed by skeptics who want to see more push back against the so-called “consensus” on global warming.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is starting a “red team, blue team” exercise as part of an “at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science,” an unnamed senior administration official told E&E News.
“We are in fact very excited about this initiative,” the official said. “Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing.”
The administration will appoint experts to serve on each team. Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have come out in favor of red-blue team exercises to evaluate climate science.
Such exercises are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies. Skeptics say it would give needed balance to climate science, which has been taken over by activist gatekeepers.
The idea has been derided by activists and scientists who say it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices who disagree with them on global warming.
“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.
“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity, and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
Defenders of the “consensus” argue the existing peer-review process works well and a red-blue team dynamic is not needed. They further argue scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide a forum for scientific debates.
“Developing science, far from being ignored, is confronted directly and openly in such assessments,” Santer, Emanuel, and Oreskes wrote.
The idea was brought forward more recently by former Energy Department official Steven Koonin.
“It is very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated,” Koonin wrote in an April Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Read more at Daily Caller
I smell a boycott. Chicken Littles turn chickensh!ts.
The climate science cowards that want to hide behind the science is settled nonsense need not show up . There are hundreds of highly qualified scientists who can objectively participate .
The IPCC was run by political operatives with a UN globalist agenda and the end product filtered for the chosen outcome .
Climate changes as it has for billions of years, warming is a positive happening and as long as we don’t deforest it is greening with the help of more CO2 .
If the Hollywood jet setters dump their waterfront Malibu properties we will know the sea creatures have more room to swim .
The accused will not show up for their trial and the MSM will talk about everything but. We will read about the debate here.
So the red team-blue team approach, whose purpose is to encourage debate, will encourage the wrong debate. Wow.
I doubt that Gore, Mann, Merkel, Trudeau, Obama, Bloomberg, Dicaprio, Steyr, or any of their ilk will accept the outcome of this debate. One of them says uncle and it all comes apart.
As Big Al has been saying for half his life, the science is settled.
Right.
Will his little snootiness Robert Kennedy Jr show up and demand Trump be tried for Crimes Against the Planet Some eco-cracked pots was the so called Climate Crinimal’s in prison along with the skeptics