Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.
EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2. The American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
Breitbart News Daily
June 5, 2017
h/t to Harry Readme
They could just ask Berkley Earth….
or a polar bear
Now you take Griff
PLEASE !
Talk is cheap, Team Trump has gone out of the way to avoid the fraud AGW science cartel. Ethanol fraud is mainstream as well.
With a thin base does any one think this slow poke approach was wise? The skeptic science team should have hit the ground with not just a Paris exit but the entire UN Climate Framework elimination.
How are you going to cut green subsidies with such an ambivalent approach to climate fraud arguments? Tesla keeps the $7500 per car fed subside and the stock is at record highs.
Swamp is winning. Pruitt’s hands are tied or he wasn’t really up to the task. I think it the former at the moment as I think appeasement is the standard RINO fall back position the DJT was committed to.
Assuming Blue Team represents the Pro AGW / Climate Change side (Mann, Gore, Hansen).
We have had two decades of Blue Team. For fairness and balance we need two decades of Red Team – only.
Along those lines, President Trump was elected because Americans had already made up their minds. AGW was about Green Money, Funding, Power, and Control, not about reality or science. The Blue vs. Red team will only perpetuate the AGW Fraud.
To avoid confusion about the “red vs blue “teams I’ll refer to to the apocalyptic vs real science teams in this comment. Choose the apocalyptic team from the EPA as they are assumed to be the best informed and most influential on the “dangers” of CO2 and global warming. Choose the “real science” teams from some of the notable “skeptics” such as Curry, Lindzen, Michaels, Ball, Spencer, etc., etc., and let the debate begin. It will take months and those within the EPA found to be unable to support their current and past position to be fired from the EPA due to incompetence.
Heated debate will be necessary and welcome. No soft talk. Debate the points aggressively as would be seen in a legal proceeding. So if past claims were made and shown not to be supported by observations that would be indicative of incompetence and justify dismissal from employment within an influential and regulatory intense organization such as the EPA. Sweep would reach to others outside the EPA also shown to be incompetent. Pull the plug on the swamp.
I like it but please include Mann, Jones and a few other non-EPA alarmists. That would be interesting if they even dared to show up.
I don’t like the idea of a red/blue team face-off. There is the usual likelihood of politics getting in the way.
I think a much better solution would be a climate prediction contest, the Edward Lorenz Climate Prediction Contest, with a prize of say, $250 million, to make it worth while to enter. The only contestants allowed would be the IPCC models, one model, one entry. The object would be to predict the lower troposphere temperature maps from the satellite data for each season for ten consecutive years, forty maps in total. For each season, the measured data map would be subtracted point-by-point from the prediction map and an error distribution created from the residuals. The distribution mean and full width at half maximum would be recorded for the purpose of scoring the model. All maps would be encrypted and sent on day zero of year zero to a neutral party, say NIST, and only decrypted after the data has been collected. Publication of a prediction map prior to the time its data was collected would disqualify the entry as an attempt to bias the results.
Beginning on day zero of year zero, the satellite data would be collected and used to generate seasonal maps. The four maps created from the weather in year zero would then be the baseline for comparison for the contest entries. Starting in year one and for the full ten years, the mean and full width of the baseline maps would be computed in exactly the same way as the contest entries. Any entry would score one point for having a better mean and another point for a better full width than the baseline map, with better being two sigma. In order to win, an entry would have to be better than the baseline maps 75% of the time. This means that there is a possibility that no model will win the contest.
I have chosen the satellite data because it is measured using genuine scientific instruments with nearly full coverage of the earth and because there are two competing teams on opposite sides of the global warming dispute analyzing the data. The ground based weather stations are too sparse and not designed, calibrated, or maintained as a scientific instrument for measuring global temperature.
I chose temperature maps because a model of the physical world should be able to predict physical things. As far as I can tell, no physical, chemical, or biological process depends on the global average temperature anomaly that is used to measure global warming.
When they get to discussing models and simulation, as soon as they are asked if all of the individual equations within a model have been verified, job done, all go home, because the answer is no. See:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
“The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. “ page 574
The warmists book of warming states that they do not know what clouds do to the temperature of the earth.
Why do we continue any further?
This approach is needed because if we are to change the current bias in science education (pretty much totally alarmist), then something like the results of this approach can be used to justify a more neutral curriculum endorsed by the findings. At the end of the day, this is needed to form a basis for change – just making the change without a deliberate, verifiable process won’t work politically. Let the folks who want to continue the scam be forced to refute the results with better science than the teams came up with – as unlikely as that is.
In the process, we can also justify the reversal of the “endangerment finding” and get CO2 back to its beloved status as plant food vs. pollutant.
Peer review sounds nice but the true tests are replication and falsification. Let’s see some hypotheses put forward that can be tested, replicated or falsified….as in real science.
RayG:
You had written “Peer review sounds nice, but the true tests are replication and falsification. Let’s see some hypotheses put forward that can be tested, replicated, and falsified…as in real science”.
Okay, here is my simple hypothesis: the reduction in the amount of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide aerosol emissions into the troposphere is the actual cause of climate change.
This hypothesis has been falsified (that is, empirically tested) multiple times and has been validated each time. It has been replicated multiple times, and enables temperature projections/predictions accurate to within .02 deg. C. or less over a span of decades.
Does this meet your criteria?
Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for details of the above.
I thought all the Blues were going to move to France and save the world through their leadership there (at least until that trough dries up too).
Exactly why adults are supposed to be still seriously discussing this always fringe, always idiotic, plain silly hypothesis after half a century generating not a whiff of evidence in support and volumes of falsifying evidence is a bit of a mystery. I suppose it may be considered as a start but I’m wary of the potential for legitimising what isn’t science at all but rather some bizarre insane cult.
If they have evidence linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide to evolution of the climate system then let them present it. If they do not then they can just shut up about it. After half a century and funding which makes the Manhattan Project look trivial then failure to produce any evidence means it’s over – permanently.
Remove their computers from them and give them a thermometer.
I hope red and blue represent hot and cold and not a political map. Politics in science is the problem not the solution.
Rather than a televised debate, how about Trump just replaces the NSF director, deputy director and 24 members of the National Science Board with skeptics, then let them change the Foundation’s statements on climate?
It would also be nice to reverse the EPA’s ruling finding CO2 to be a pollutant.
The President appoints 24 Members of the National Science Board for six year terms. The NSF director serves as an ex officio 25th member. Every two years, one-third (eight) of the members rotate off of the Board and eight new members are appointed (or occasionally re-appointed) to serve for six-year terms.
Thus Trump will be able to replace 16 of the 24 members, and all of them if he be reelected.
Staff will do as they are told by the director and board.
AGW supposes that the increase in Global Average Warming since about 1950 is caused by Man’s burning of carbon-based fuels, because it produces increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The basis of this guess is that carbon dioxide is known to be a “Greenhouse Gas”.
The familiar but poorly understood term Greenhouse Effect is a temperature – that resulting from heat held by all the gases in the atmosphere.
Therefore, ALL gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases as they all get warmed by Earth’s heat.
Each gas’ contribution to the heat held is about in proportion to their quantity.
As carbon dioxide constitutes a tiny 0.04%, its contribution to Earth’s greenhouse effect is also only an immeasurably small 0.04%.
“Not even climate scientists consider the experiment any more than a crude demonstration that heat from a lamp will warm a small closed container.”
In fact, the summer sun does the exact same thing to my car… damn you Trump!
A positive view on “red vs. blue” teams:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/08/trumps-epa-chief-backs-approach-to-science-that-could-upend-the-global-warming-consensus/
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/06/08/cost_of_elon_musks_dream_much_higher_than_he_and_others_imagine_110233.html
At least by calling the blue team blue the essential partisan, globalist left is exposed for what they are. The link exposes the duplicity of the rent seeking class.
Pruitt and DJT should welcome conflict with both groups as a path to victory.