A Red Team to end the climate wars: fun but likely to fail.

A Red Team to end the climate wars: fun but likely to fail.

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: Team Trump has proposed a Red Team project to resolve the climate debates. It’s an exciting promise of an easy solution to the public policy gridlock. It will make the situation worse.

 

The climate debate has — like so many other policy debates — become dominated by a proposal by Team Trump. They suggest some kind of “Red Team vs. Blue Team” debate about climate change. These articles show there is little agreement about the structure or goals of the project.

What is “Red Teaming”?

To understand these proposals, first turn to the Red Team Journal (founded 1997). Start with “A Balanced View” of Red Teaming.

“Defined loosely, red teaming is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor’s perspective. The goal of most red teams is to enhance decision making, either by specifying the adversary’s preferences and strategies or by simply acting as a devil’s advocate. Red teaming may be more or less structured, and a wide range of approaches exists. In the past several years, red teaming has been applied increasingly to issues of security, although the practice is potentially much broader. Business strategists, for example, can benefit from weighing possible courses of action from a competitor’s point of view. …

“Despite the many advantages of candid red teaming, the practice is subject to various limitations and constraints. A red team cannot predict with certainty what an adversary will do, nor can it uncover all possible weaknesses in a concept, plan, or system. Red teams that claim these abilities overstate the benefits of red teaming and invariably mislead their clients. Decision makers who attempt to use a red team to divine specific events risk doing worse than nothing.”

Red Teams work well to analyze an organization’s positioning and actions vs. an adversary or competitor. It is a natural tool for the military and security fields, and works well for business strategy. A Red Team artificially creates divisions within an organization, breaking consensus thinking and facilitating growth of new perspectives. No matter what the outcome, there is little risk to the organization or its staff from these projects. For example, Army officers gaming the Opposing Force in a war game will not be seen as the real enemy (Nazis, Russians, etc).

But there is no enemy organization in the climate debates, no OpFor. The existing divisions in our climate science institutions are part of the problem. Climate science today has broken into two tribes (of unequal size). Worse, their work has become politicized and tied to the polarized politics of America. Now some advocate pouring kerosene on these flames by pitting the two sides in a head to head confrontation, like a World Series of Climate Science — with the crowds cheering “their” team. It would take divine intervention for this to produce anything useful — for either climate science or the public policy debate.

A Red Team is not a relevant tool to help resolve the climate debates. It is the opposite of what we need today.

Alternative Analysis

Red Teams are one form of Alternative Analysis (A. A.). From the Red Team Journal.

“Alternative analysis is the superclass of techniques of which red teaming may be considered a member. As with red teaming, these techniques are designed to help debias thinking, enhance decision making, and avoid surprise.

“According to Fishbein and Treverton, ‘alternative analysis seeks to help analysts and policy-makers stretch their thinking through structured techniques that challenge underlying assumptions and broaden the range of possible outcomes considered.’ They further clarify the term by specifying that ‘Alternative analysis includes techniques to challenge analytic assumptions (e.g. devil’s advocacy), and those to expand the range of possible outcomes considered (e.g. what-if analysis, and alternative scenarios).'”

I doubt any A.A. tool will advance the state of climate science. I have seen no historical examples of this, let alone successful examples. But some forms of A. A. are appropriate tools to break the public policy paralysis.

 

Call in experts to answer a question

How can A.A. methods be used in the climate wars? First, what is the key question to answer? The answer should make a difference in the debate. It should be doable with the time and funds available. Many of the proposals flunk one or both of these, such as calls to review the IPCC’s Working Group I report — the physical science. The time and money required to this adequately would be immense.

Since 2009 I have had recommendations to re-start the public policy engines. Especially this, which fits these criteria. Others have made similar proposals.

  1. A review of the climate forecasting models by a multidisciplinary team of relevant experts who have not been central players in this debate. Include a broader pool than those who have dominated the field, such as geologists, chemists, statisticians and software engineers.

Models are the fulcrum in the climate policy debate, turning theory and data into forecasts that are the primary input to the climate policy debate. There has been little work done to validate them (see this list of the literature and this example). Model validation is a well-established field. With money and time a group could investigate and evaluate one or more of the major modeling systems. Whatever the result, we would know more than we know today.

It is an operationally simple proposal, using people uninvolved in the climate wars, likely to produce useful results. So neither side will like it. That’s today’s America!

 

It’s not a silver bullet

Experts in alternative analysis warn that these are tools, not miracles. The success rate of these projects is unknown, but there are a lot of failures. Even simple projects often result in organizational discord or even chaos, as with the 2016 Red Team examination of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center.

Also note that this is not the first A.A. project in the climate wars. The Berkeley Earth project raised $2.5 million (including $150,000 from the Koch Foundation) to fund a group of scientists who reanalyzed the Earth’s surface temperature record. They published their initial findings in 2012, with no visible effect on either the debate among scientists or the public policy debate. See Wikipedia for details.

 

An ominous example of A.A. failure

An extreme example of a failure of A.A. is the 1976 “Team B” project. A group of hawks accused the CIA of underestimating Soviet military capability. They were given free reign to produce an analysis more acceptable to the GOP’s hawks. They did so, producing what became politically useful justifications for Reagan’s massive military buildup. The CIA later concluded

“In retrospect, and with the Team B report and records now largely declassified, it is possible to see that virtually all of Team B’s criticisms of the NIE proved to be wrong. …While Team B was estimating a relentless, continuing buildup at a growing pace, it was later learned that, in fact, Soviet leaders had just cut back the rate of spending on their military effort and would not increase it for the next nine years {in response to the Reagan buildup}. “

The USSR never built directed energy weapons, mobile ABM systems, and anti-satellite systems. The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989 and it died in 1991. In fact, the Team B conclusions were backwards, as later analysis with data from Soviet records found that US intelligence exaggerated Soviet aggressiveness and military capabilities. See the details here.

The members were selected for their politically useful views. Most were later rewarded for their false analysis by promotion to high offices.

This is what many scientists and politicians fear will happen with any “Red Team” project conducted by the Trump Administration. They will stack the Team B with people who will produce the desired conclusions, then use the report to drive new public policy measures. But this is not 1976, nor is Team Trump the hawk neocons at the peak of their cunning. In today’s politically polarized America, a stacked Red Team will be seen as illegitimate by most climate scientists and much of the public. It will further the politicization of science, resolve nothing, and accomplish nothing.

We can do better. But we probably won’t.

A a proposal for a “Team B” project

Dr. Roy Spencer (meteorologist, principal research scientist at U AL-Huntsville) proposes a “Team B” project for climate science in “A Global Warming Red Team Warning: Do NOT Strive for Consensus with the Blue Team” at his website. It’s designed to document the skeptic position on a broad array of climate-related questions.

His proposal has two potential problems. First, I doubt there is a consistent skeptic paradigm to contrast with that expressed in the IPCC’s WGI report of AR5. The skeptics’ have a wide range of beliefs, which will add up to a grab-bag of ideas. Second, this probably will polarize the climate science field into opposition to their work (that would be my reaction if I were a climate scientist). Also, it is unlikely to have the political effect he desires. I doubt politicians will stake their careers on theories which most climate scientists loudly oppose.

For More Information

Climate scientists Judith Curry has some valuable insights about this proposal at Climate Etc.

For more information about this vital issue see the posts about the RCPs, about the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the politics of climate change…

  1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
  2. We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
  3. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
  4. A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
Advertisements

294 thoughts on “A Red Team to end the climate wars: fun but likely to fail.

      • Larry, we need a red team with some balls…..they sit there, talked down to, mealy mouth around
        …they need to be in attack mode…and rightly so
        I’d like to see someone like Tony, Rud, and David wipe the floor with them..and they can do it

        Sometimes a picture says it all…

      • Politicians want to play the qualifications game, but no one wants to completely invalidate their own field by calling fraud.

        Hence why every red team effort has been quibbling about uncertainties and climate sensitivity

      • Unfortunately, Latitude, what reads like floor-wiping mastery here, in this forum, will flounder in real world debate. That is the flaw in Pruitt’s plan – those who speak out of hundreds of years of focused scientific enquiry into planetary behavior will always wipe the floor with Monday morning quarterbacks building spurious ‘theories’ by hijacking the scientists’ hard won knowledge.
        You can’t win – denial of what is happening to the planet will be seen to be lame when it goes up against reality.

      • JD,
        I’m impressed by your obvious confidence. It reminds me of all the pundits forecasting an uncontested win by Clinton.

      • The climate debate has… become dominated by a proposal by Team Trump.
        Um, no. Not even close to being true. Cut it out Larry.

        Talk of a “climate war” is furtive doubt-mongering and is about as legitimate as the “evolution war” or the “spherical earth war”. Scientists who work in the field are almost universally appalled at the way their clear, incontrovertible observations are trumped by vested interests and garner at best some lip-service.

        The Titanic steams on.

    • The irony here is the Blue Team knows going in the science proposition of AGW is a farce but plays it like Moses descending from mountains carrying the Commandments while the Red team grovels trying to appease and find tepid dissenting side points. They are generally worse then RINOS are to the GOP in comparison.

      The division among actual skeptics who view the situation as political contrivance and the hairsplitting nerd wing arguing endless margin of error data stats will be highlighted yet again.

      The Blue team will make fools of themselves with the usual arrogance and know-it-all persona but likely we’ll be left wondering how they weren’t crushed in the public forum of debate, yet again. The baseline technical skeptics remain much of the problem.

      Acknowledging the AGW fraud process from inception is the only path to decisive victory. Validation of doctored agenda driven model theory only delays the correction. The Red team should acknowledge the AGW fraud and the political reasons for its creation as a starting point. Skeptics who can’t accept it should sit in the back row. Curry and Lomborg should lead the Red Team? That’s a sad joke.

      Lindzen, Murano and Delingpole have the breadth of it figured out. Another make-believe “science” farce is in the works.

  1. Distinguish Professor Michael Mann expects to be elected unanimously captain-generalissimo-supreme commander of the blue team

    • Joe,

      Here is some evidence supporting your theory, in a broad sense, from a reader at the FM website look at a discussion about Red Teams at ATTP’s blog.

      “The comment thread showed how closed are the minds of people interested in global warming/climate change. The discussion was mainly scheming about the arrangements and rules to ensure that a predetermined ‘truth’ would be affirmed. Or whether joining in would weaken the already commanding and succeeding alarmist position.”

      I have not verified this. Has anyone here seen that thread?

      • Ron,

        What did you find “reasonable” about Tobis’ post? Much of what Tobis writes is nonsense, like this:

        “there’s no fundamental reason that physical science would fail to grapple with the earth as an object. And it hasn’t.”

        What is the point of that? If it is a rebuttal, what is he referring to? Most of his post is like this. It is a commonplace tactic among climate activists. They make up stuff, write rebuttals, and declare the win.

        He makes one point identical to that in this post, but then returns to his core belief that he’s correct and those who disagree with him are inherently wrong and can be disregarded (no matter how eminent their climate science professional record). It shows that he does not understand the purpose or operation of a Red Team.

        “Or, we could be happy with a conventional red team, where people of extraordinary competence and no axe to grind were brought in to revisit the evidence. As long as we could ensure participation by somebody other than the usual NIPCC gang, whether as the red team or as adjudicators of the exercise, we could make lemonade out of these lemons.

        “Of course, we aren’t really talking about science, but about politics hiding behind science’s skirt.”

      • I, too, see little that’s reasonable in Michael Tobis’ post. For example, there’s this:

        “While there’s a sound foundation for climatology that (barely) predates the computational science era (essentially the basics of physical climatology were codified in a 1967 monograph by Ed Lorenz) it’s the progress that has been made since the first successful general circulation models that makes the field so exemplary of modern, computationally driven science.”

        A Red Team which had as its members some of the computational fluid dynamics people who try to predict the drag of a new airliner would be non-climate scientists who are experts in CFD – unlike the climate scientists who attempt to use it to model the entire planet. They would instantly shoot down the idea that a CFD model on that scale could predict anything accurately beyond a small number of time steps, and that the 100 year predictions are equivalent to random number generators. There has never been a “successful general circulation model”, unless the definition of “success” is a model that wouldn’t diverge to infinity in a few time steps. There never will be, either. No matter how many times computational power doubles, it will never approach the speed needed to resolve the Kolmogorov scale for the Earth’s atmosphere.

        But even more to the point, bringing in engineers and scientists who are skilled in making accurate measurements would blow the entire “consensus” out of the water. I’m an engineer, and pay attention to the nature of my sources of data. When I saw that the “global average temperature” from the beginning of the “instrumental period” was being reported to two significant figures, I became suspicious. Averaging can improve accuracy if one is averaging measurements of one thing (and there is no bias in the measurements). Averaging 3,000 measurements of different things doesn’t change the accuracy of each individual measurement at all. The early instrumental record had a measurement accuracy no better than +/- 1 degree C. It’s not possible, therefore, to come up with a temperature change of less than 1 degree C.

        However, it’s worse than that. When I delved into the subject, and realized that the “global average temperature anomaly” doesn’t contain even a single measured temperature, I realized that this whole thing is a farce.

        I think this Red Team approach (which is used by every aerospace company to vet their own proposals) could, in fact, destroy the pseudo-science of climate change.

      • MSK,
        Even today, the automated weather stations round off their temperature readings to the nearest degree F and then convert it to a precision of 1/10th degree C.

      • Fabius, the bit you quoted makes sense to me:
        ““there’s no fundamental reason that physical science would fail to grapple with the earth as an object. And it hasn’t.”
        He simply and correctly said that the physical science applied to the study of Earth is sound science. His referants are Earth and science, and he’s implying the insights gained are legitimate.
        What’s not to understand?

      • Jack,

        The statement by itself, taken out of context, is meaningless. He did not simply say that “physical science is sound”, he made a clear assumption that because it sound it is capable of describing earth system accurately.

        This is a nonsensical argument. Let me provide some examples to illustrate:
        Physical science behind controlled nuclear fusion is sound so we should have nuclear fusion reactors producing energy.
        Physical science behind what causes cancer is sound so we should have it cured by now
        Physical science of how brain work is sound, so we should be able to explain it by now.

        See the problem here? While first part of the statement, “Physical science is sound” part is correct, second part isn’t. Because of enormous complexity of the problem that you try to solve with that “sound physical science”, it’s soundness makes no difference to end result whatsoever.

        And we know, without any shadow of a doubt, that there are no computational system out there that is capable of accurately analyze climate system. So all this “sound science” talk is meaningless diversion.

      • Sorry Udar, he said no reason why it shouldn’t ‘grapple’ with understanding Earth’s systems – and science has grappled very well and brought us great insight into the workings of our world. Nobody is asking science to ‘accurately predict’ the minutiae of outcomes, but science has been very successful at modeling and predicting the big picture.
        One of the fascinating things to watch is how science fills in the gaps in our knowledge as the details of global warming emerge. For instance, it was correctly forecast that the poles, particularly the Arctic, would warm faster than the rest of the planet – that was a very early prediction. What science didn’t foresee was the way changes to the jet stream would give us super cold mid-latitude winters, but because scientists were ready with sound physics, we now understand the mechanisms behind that phenomenon reasonably well. It’s a fascinating watch, and I fear many of the contributors to this forum are missing the enjoyment to be had in watching good science develop before our eyes.

    • This would be a blessing, you want all the Marxist faction there in full social revolutionary form.

      What you don’t want are the Red Team political equivalent of David Brooks of NPR/NYT, John McCain and Lindsey Graham representing anyone on climate.

  2. Would facts and logic sway the believers? Hasn’t so far. Neither has actual observational data.

    • John,

      You nailed it! That’s why a Red Team is unlikely to have any political effect. The true believers on both sides are entrenched in their views.

      Hence the need to try other methods of Alternative Analysis. I like the idea of bringing in new voices, experts so far largely excluded from the debate — such as statisticans, software engineers, experts at model testing and validation. People whose analysis cannot be easily blown off, giving new perspectives.

      • I get pretty much ignored, and have a good fit to your critera, as well as being a leader in my expertise areas (circuit analysis, simulation and modeling, and data analytics for almost 40 years)

      • I get pretty much ignored, and have a good fit to your critera, as well as being a leader in my expertise areas (circuit analysis, simulation and modeling, and data analytics for almost 40 years)

      • micro6500,

        “I get pretty much ignored, and have a good fit to your critera,”

        Yes, that’s the problem. A review board of uninvolved experts from a wide range of relevant fields is a plausible tool to change that.

        Unlike creating a partisan team — obvious further politicization of science, whose conclusions would be easily ignored — a team of well-funded prestigious experts might change the game.

      • Only one side has True Believers – the Alarmist side. The only thing Skeptics/Climate Realists “believe” in is truth, and actual science.

      • Right, but that’s already been done in some areas of the climate debate. Case in point: Steve McIntyre and all of his statistical work that has debunked warmist models and analyses. He’s an outsider that showed the mathematical flaws in Mann’s hockey stick, yet he was largely viewed as heretical by the warmist establishment. The problem is more fundamental than asking whether or not a Red Team/Blue Team approach will work in the Climate Debate. Quite frankly, it won’t because the warmist side does not engage in actual science or logical debating about the objective facts that are known. Warmists live and trade on what COULD happen, what MIGHT happen, and it’s always bad news when it comes to their version of the future climate.

        The tide of the battle, I think, changed in 2009 with Climategate. It will continue to rage for some time, but I think cooler heads will prevail (pun intended!). I think the warmist side will just continue to whither, especially now that we have an administration that seriously questions CAGW, and best of all, plans to yank a lot of the funding for all their “research”. I give it another decade or two, when hopefully we see cooler temps that result from the current, very inactive, solar cycle 24. Eventually, CAGW will be viewed like a flat earth was, but that’s probably a generation or two away from now.

      • FM, what about an audit of techniques, methods, payola, etc. that the consensus builders/enforcers havee been using for many years now? A sort of truth commission….

      • Larry; you write: “Decision makers who attempt to use a red team to divine specific events risk doing worse than nothing.”

        How can this be consistent with: “Hence the need to try other methods of Alternative Analysis.”?

        Isn’t a “Red Team” also an “Alternative Analysis”? It would seem to suggest a conflict to me.

        Certainly I agree “worse than nothing” is a very real risk since it always seems to me that doing nothing never shows up on the table in these proceedings. I’m a personal fan of the “don’t just do something, stand there” approach to politics when there’s such a large disagreement by experts in the field.

      • Bartleby,

        “Larry; you write: ‘Decision makers who attempt to use a red team to divine specific events risk doing worse than nothing.” How can this be consistent with: ‘Hence the need to try other methods of Alternative Analysis’?”

        The first sentence warms about inappropriate use of Red Teams (one form of Alt Analysis). The second recommends using other forms of Alt Analysis (i.e., other than Red Teams).

        Why is this inconsistent?

      • Until recently, there has been no real debate in government. All I hear is bumper sticker slogans… especially the (fake appeal to authority) belief that 97% of scientists believe in some myth of CAGW or AGW or global warming… None of which is specific. Just some general belief that we must do something about CO2. Having a debate in government turns the corner. That there are now two sides of a debate, there can be the possibility of doubt in some people’s minds. We were there before with witches being agreed upon as a problem that must be dealt with.

    • Exactly, John. Reason has little value in a religious argument.

      Reply: JohnKnight below is correct. That was bigoted. You happy now John?~ctm

      • Couldn’t disagree more.

        Reason has enormous value in religious arguments, just as it does in most areas of life. While I get your sentiment and feel the same way, please don’t throw those of us with a faithful persuasion under the bus with warmists.

      • The term ‘religion’ has been (to my mind) too casually adopted as a slur of sorts in the “climate wars”, by many of an atheistic bent. To be an atheist, one must have faith that there is no God, for instance, since it is not possible to directly observe the absence of such a hypothetical Entity. It is therefore a “religious” position, in the “faith based” sense, and one quite zealously advanced/evangelized for at times, it seems to me . .

        Often in ways that belie an unthinking assumptive certainty, I feel, which can render the “true disbeliever” a veritable bundle of self contradiction . . and somewhat incapacitated in the realm of self awareness, in terms of recognizing/accepting that their “religious persuasion” is not some sort of default scientific Truth, that theists are somehow “deniers” of, to borrow a term from another band of zealous absolutists ; )

        Reply: Let’s avoid spiraling off in a discussion of theism vs atheism. Avoid the temptation! ~ctm

      • (Why aren’t you sticking that note in the box of the person who started the “spiraling off”, sir? I just responded to someone dissing “me” . . for the umpteenth time. ????)

      • (PS ~ Charles, I suggest you “avoid the temptation” to screw up Anthony’s site, by disallowing responses to derogatory (and unsupported) cliches you happen to not see as problematic . . I never saw him make any such attempts to stifle responses to slurs of the kind you just did, and things went a whole lot further in several discussions I’ve watched and/or participated in. If you want, I can go find a few good examples . .

        If you are going to be effectively enforcing a ban on responding to blatantly bigoted comments, I’m going to be booted rather quickly, I suspect ; )

        Reply: Uh, I saw your comment and politely asked you not to go in another direction. I did not see the previous comment as yours was the one I freed from moderation. It has been a longstanding policy on this site to avoid certain conflict-ridden conflicts, such as evolution, intelligent design, middle east conflict, religion. I did not ban you, censure you in any way. I was steering something I saw, and not looking for it to go elsewhere. The fact that this happens anyway when no one is looking does not mean that I will not point it out when I see it. There is no need to take offense. Now I have to go look at the comment that you say is bigoted to see if I have to do anything else. Thanks a lot. ~ctm

      • Charles,

        “You happy now John?”

        Only occasionally these days . . but right now is such an occasion, thanks ; )

        “I did not ban you, censure you in any way.”

        Well, psychologically you did . . in the sense that despite what you call long standing policy, discussion on some of those topics has been allowed to take place, of late anyway (I’ve been commenting here for less than two years), often initiated by what might be called atheistic perspective proponents . . but, I have initiated some at times within what to me seem like topic relevant circumstances.

        Specifically, I have several times advanced ideas having to do with the potential that the CAGW is not the first attempt to (as I see it) commandeer science, and indoctrinate the general population to accept a virtual god role for the “scientific community” . . and that Evolution theory was/is a set-up of sorts, which served/serves as a model, so to speak ; ) for what we have been watching the CAGW clan attempt in the way of elevating “consensus” positions, to unquestionable “settled science” status.

        And, it’s not a real comfy sort of position to be in on a “science site” . . though Anthony (and the crew) have been gracious in allowing me to develop (and I believe advance) the proposition at times. And to respond with some latitude (as here I feel) to some who hound me a bit, and inject their . . sense that I am an ignoramus for questioning/threatening Evolution theory’s status (in their mind’s) as unquestionable scientific fact.

        Thanks for your tolerance and . . intolerance ; )

        Reply:I’m going to send you an email because I would snip the things I’m going to say to you if anyone posted them.~ctm

      • Huh? . . I haven’t the slightest idea why you would be freaking out over anything I wrote . .

        Reply: No one freaked out. I sent you an email where I would say things I would not say here. ~ctm

      • Charles,

        How exactly is evolution “conflict-ridden”? It’s a scientific fact, ie an observation. There is no scientific controversy over the fact of evolution. Biologists differ in their conclusions as to whether selection or stochastic processes are more important, but over the fact of evolution, there is no disagreement.

        Evolution is far less contentious than is gravity, for instance. How can a science blog ban discussion of evolution? You might as well ban discussion of the heliocentric solar system.

        Repy: Because discussions of evolution spawn discussions of religious faith, theism vs. atheism and a lot of ignorant sniping. So it is better to leave it alone. I don’t want people of faith attacking you, and I don’t want you attacking people of faith. The schism between science and religion is a relatively recent one, and one we would like to avoid here. `ctm

      • “Reply: No one freaked out. I sent you an email where I would say things I would not say here. ~ctm”

        Things you would snip if said here, according to your last note . . How ’bout a clue? I see nothing new in my mail yet . . Is it thanking your for doing your job? You know, being intolerant? That’s why you’re here, after all, isn’t it, Charles the moderator? You know, like snipping something would entail?

        If it’s just for trying to explain what I’ve experienced here . . I’m freaked out ; )

        Reply: Sent almost 24 hours ago. It’s not my fault if you don’t register your correct email. ~ctm

      • It’s the correct email address, if it’s what I’m looking at right now below the box I’m typing in. johnknighted@gmail.com

        “I was steering something I saw, and not looking for it to go elsewhere.”

        Without bothering to read what I was responding to? As the thread was before you came in with your (to me) bizarre directive to avoid some imaginary temptation you assumed I felt, I don’t think there was a realistic chance the discussion was going to continue at all . . Read it again, and I think you’ll agree.

        Be that as it may, this is what I am interested in;

        “The schism between science and religion is a relatively recent one, and one we would like to avoid here.”

        If the schism exists it is here, right? You mean you wish to avoid discussing the matter here, right? Thing is, I have been, as I told you, Anthony allowed me to. And now (I believe) many here know that science, in the modern sense, was initiated, and until very recently dominated, by Christians.

        PS ~ These two comments are expressing the very same bigotry, to me;

        Reason has little value in a religious argument.

        … discussions of evolution spawn discussions of religious faith, theism vs. atheism and a lot of ignorant sniping.

        Can you see it?

        Reply: Not in the quote from me. I see motivated reasoning on your part assuming your tribe was being accused of something~ctm

      • You seem extremely susceptible to believing whatever happens to pop into your head, to me, Charles;

        ” I see motivated reasoning on your part assuming your tribe was being accused of something~ctm”

        I bet you did see that . . in your imagination ; )

    • A clear and straightforward statement about the deceptive concoction of the 97% consensus and the intrusion of politics via the Al Gore involvement would set the stage for the need for review. Cue the waiting experts to deconstruct “An Inconvenient Truth”and explain how utterly untrue it is. At that point you haven’t even said anything vaguely contestable and you’ve moved the needle a long way toward a real debate. I’m a little bit happy right there!
      That has to be followed up with a strong attack strategy. Direct accusations against Mann, the IPCC and others of the corrupt cabal. Stress repeatedly the financial corruption of the entire enterprise. The need here is to set and control the agenda and keep them in the public eye defending themselves. Over time this will utterly corrode their credibility.
      As an example, a proper assessment of his signature book and presentation carried out in the public eye and followed up with the details of how he got rich off that garbage, would associate his cause with self-interest and fr@ud!
      This war is not science, it is politics. That’s how it has to be fought.

      • Sadly, John Harmsworth, those “believers” don’t even accept the errors in “AIT” even when shown them.

        Perhaps, the effort shouldn’t be toward the believers but more toward real scientists and those folks with an open mind.

        After all, the majority of actual scientists express some level of skepticism as to whether and how much human CO2 emissions are having even a detectable level of atmospheric warming. Even some of the hard-core believer scientists have a hard time trying to pin down that one elusive amount.

      • “Cue the waiting experts to deconstruct “An Inconvenient Truth”and explain how utterly untrue it is.”

        We should put the English judge who ruled that Gore’s movie contained factual errors, on the Red Team.

      • “Cue the waiting experts to deconstruct “An Inconvenient Truth”and explain how utterly untrue it is.”

        The problem with that is that Gore was essentially spot-on with An Inconvenient Truth. History has absolved him.

        I wish people would stop talking about the 97% concensus as if climate change is a matter of opinion, when all evidence is that it is an unfolding fact that we should be dealing with.

      • JD,

        You said, “The problem with that is that Gore was essentially spot-on with An Inconvenient Truth. History has absolved him.” Apparently you are unaware that an English judge disagrees with you.

        You also said, “I wish people would stop talking about the 97% concensus [sic] as if climate change is a matter of opinion,…” The problem is, alarmists keep raising the point that they think authority should be more important than facts and logic. They even ignore the several critical analyses of the 97% claim and keep repeating it.

      • Clyde Spencer – I sure ain’t guilty of appealing to authority when I say history has absolved Gore. The evidence that he was correct is all about us and piling up daily. I go on my own understanding of the situation and my respect for the magnificent body of scientific work we have amassed on the subject.
        It seems ironic you accuse ‘warmists’ of appealing to authority in almost the same breath as you appeal to the judgement of some crusty old pommie judge. That’s probably not even scientific authority you appealed to!

    • The intent is not to “sway the believers”. The new crop of Government decision makers (presidential advisors and Agency heads) are not dedicated “believers”. The intent should be to provide them with sufficient information to allow them to decide that the policies demanded by CAGW are unnecessary and inconsistent with those intended to MAGA.

    • JohnWho, if as the article above says, the fulcrum of this issue is the climate models, then there will likely be claims that only modelers are qualified to participate. And the blue team objective is simply to build better models. After all, observations can’t tell us the future. Nor can the models BTW, but if you are a modeler, you gotta believe.

      • Ron,

        “that only modelers are qualified to participate.”

        I agree. That’s why I said build the team around relevant experts. Such as modelers from other fields, mathematicians (including statisticians), and software engineers. I believe that even the hardest core climate activist would find this proposal difficult to fight in public (although they might freak out in private).

        It’s a mousetrap.

      • “I believe that even the hardest core climate activist would find this proposal difficult to fight in public ”

        On the contrary, I think climatologists would welcome the outside modelers – and when the outside modelers get to grips with the knowledge the climatologists contribute to the models, they too will be climatologists.
        You can’t win because the climate models are not wrong – just imperfect.

      • JD,

        You appear to be new to this debate. You don’t seem to be familiar with the infamous email exchanges exposed in the Climategate scandal. If you were, I don’t see how you could have such trust in the modelers “welcoming” outsiders. There are several instances where FOIA requests have been fought because the holder of data expressed concern that ‘D nye-ers’ would just use the data to create problems.

        You said, “You can’t win because the climate models are not wrong – just imperfect.” That is like saying that if I get a bank statement that says my savings account has grown larger than I think it has, that the bank statement is not wrong, it is just imperfect. Sophistry! A telescope mirror may have a blemish that causes it to be imperfect. However, saying that 2+2=5 is just plain wrong; it is not an imperfection.

      • Clyde, you know what I mean. Sure 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect, but if I say ‘two and a bit plus another two and a bit will be somewhere close to five’ I’m quite correct and have roughed out a useful prediction. That’s what I meant.
        I think any reasonable referee would find the (to use your word) d-nye-er team more guilty of sophistry than the warmists (I’ll embrace the tag, and it seems permissible here).
        Yes, I read at the time some of the unfortunate emails you speak of, but you have to understand, they were countering folk who were insisting two plus two equals five.
        This argument is not sophistry, but you’ve got me seeing angels dancing on the head of a pin – so I’m out.
        Cheers

    • I suspect that it will take another multi decade cooling period to completely unseat the warmest crowd. Of course, as with the last cool period, the watermelons will somehow blame mankind for it too.

  3. Doesn’t matter if it fails as long as the skeptical viewpoint gets genuine attention, The debate will finally start.

    • Scarface,

      “The debate will finally start.”

      The potential outcomes are more complex. Consider the risks (there are always risks).

      If this is seen by climate scientists as an attempt to further politicize their field — much like the 1976 Team B exercise did to US intelligence — then many or most will rightly unite against it. Borderline skeptical scientists might avoid it. The news media will, of course, support condemnation of the project. Public opinion is likely to follow.

      It could easily become a fiasco.

      • The public ranks climate change the least pressing matter. Meanwhile, the leftist MSM is losing all remaining credibility. I say: bring it on!

      • If this is seen by climate scientists as an attempt to further politicize their field …

        Heh. Maybe we should use such reasoning to debate solutions to the opioid crisis:

        If this is seen by the drug cartels as an attempt to further escalate violence in their field …

        It could easily become a fiasco.

      • I like that, KK – the 97% real scientists are the skeptics, and, you nailed it, the small 3% of the CAGW by CO2 folks are the ones not accepting the actual science.

        That is one of the inconvenient truths that needs to be brought forth more often.

  4. But this misses the point. All that’s needed is mandated equal funding and peer review to both sides of the argument, all on the basis that ‘consensus science’ is as Einstein made very clear, a non-science. He said that just one argument against would have knocked down his theories and the then consensus would be meaningless. Trump simply needs to reinstate the Royal Society’s motto to science: “Nullius in Verba” – “on the word of no one” or “Take nobody’s word for it”.

    • “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard Feynman. Experiment = Reality.

  5. Let us science to do its work. In the end the truth will come up like oil. We should remember that the whole mess is do to a team called IPCC. It was invented by top politicians. Politicians never say that “We were wrong”.

    What Trump’s administration would do and should do is to establish a neutral committee to carry out an audit, in which way the global temperature data sets have been calculated starting from the very first calculation methods up to last versions. This is work carried out by state’s public officers and they are accountable to do it by right and transparent methods.

    • aveollila,

      “Let us science to do its work. ”

      Unfortunately the mills of science, like the “mills of God”, grind exceedingly slowly. As Stephen Mosher has said, the current public policy gridlock has prevented us from even preparing for the certain repeat of past weather.

      “establish a neutral committee to carry out an audit”

      Yes, that’s essentially what I (and others) have proposed. The question is what specifically to audit. Resources are limited, and too broad scope is likely to produce vague much. I believe models are the best subject, the schwerpunkt (the focus of the probe, a term from blitzkrieg).

      “to establish a neutral committee to carry out an audit, in which way the global temperature data sets have been calculated starting from the very first calculation methods up to last versions.”

      The Berkeley Earth project spent $2.5 million doing that, with seed money from the Koch Foundation. What are the odds that another group would produce different resutts?

      • Ave:
        “to establish a neutral committee to carry out an audit, in which way the global temperature data sets have been calculated starting from the very first calculation methods up to last versions.”

        Fabius:
        The Berkeley Earth project spent $2.5 million doing that, with seed money from the Koch Foundation. What are the odds that another group would produce different results?

        Reviewing data homogenization methodology was an example of what I expected from the Red Team effort. My understanding is that Berkeley is part of the blue team, and as “referee” would see and call the same “fouls” as NOAA etc. I don’t expect their “fouls” to be mistaken, I expect them to have missed “fouls” going the other way.

        However, I’ll do some research and see if most skeptics believe as you do, Fab, and why.

  6. I tend to agree. “Red Teaming” has now become a buzz word for some ill defined procedure that is supposed to be the grand solution for all problems. I guess it’s easier for most to just spout the latest jargon than to take the time to define the actual problem and derive a fix that is clear of all, or at least most unintended consequences. Competent systems diagnosticians are few and far between. And, the current state of climate research and publishing is a system level problem that is going to require system level fixes, not just jumping on the latest buss word.as a generic solution.

    • Joe,

      “Red Teaming” has now become a buzz word for some ill defined procedure that is supposed to be the grand solution for all problems.”

      That’s an important point. I wanted to discuss it in this post, but it was already too long. Proposals for Red Teams are popping up for all kinds of problems, for most of which it is not a relevant solution.

      In many cases the people using the team treat it as an almost meaningless buzzword. That is true in the climate debate. People call for a Red Team, then describe something quite different in structure and goals.

  7. I tend to think the exercise proposed by EPA’s Pruitt will be useful, and not only for addressing the endangerment finding. CAGW at heart rests on a few core assertions that can be examined for their likely veracity. Every time I check one, it turns out not to be true. These are not subtle or complex flaws. Example: unavoidable model parameter tuning drags in the attribution problem, which has caused them to undeniably run hot. Example: 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 happened this century, yet except for a now fully cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip there has been no meaningful warming this century except by Karlization. Example: Greenland is bowl shaped so most of its ice would have to melt, not calve, so sudden SLR alarm based on Greenland is impossible. Example: there is no SLR acceleration except by poor choice of tide gauges or by splicing on sat alt that fails the closure test. Example: polar bears do not depend on summer ice; most of their feeding is on spring ice during the seal whelping season and nobody claims sea ice won’t form during the Arctic winter to be there in the spring. I have covered many more examples in essays in Blowing Smoke.
    Getting such simple facts out into general public awareness in coherent simple pictures that expose the core half truths and falsehoods will hit hard at the warmunist hysteria. It changes the political dynamic to the science isn’t settled, and a lot of what you were told was settled science is simply wrong. Sometimes deliberately so, to the point of academic misconduct.

    • Ristvan,

      “I tend to think the exercise proposed by EPA’s Pruitt will be useful,”

      What did Pruitt propose? His statements are vague and inconsistent. My guess (emphasis on “guess”) is that he is floating trial balloons — politically smart tactics for this kind of thing.

      The devil is in the details about Alternative Analysis projects, often deciding if a project is a homerun or a fiasco.

      Journalists have been unable to get details from him or the EPA (as of Thursday). I contacted EPA’s press office and was told that they got nothing on this (they’re usually very helpful).

      • Fair enough.Perhaps we are projecting a little, but some minor recognition that there is another viewpoint has to be good. We will have to be prepared as the counterattack will be fierce!

      • John,

        “but some minor recognition that there is another viewpoint has to be good.”

        I believe we can aim higher than that. It will require understanding the various Alt Analysis tools available, the importance of project design, and weighing risks vs. potential rewards.

        What do you think of a review board as I suggested in this post (and several climate scientists have proposed, in various forms)?

    • Rud,
      There are at least three individual problems to be solved, each requiring a different solution. First is, as you mentioned, getting the information out to the public to overcome their current level of ‘brain washing.’ But, in order to do that you need to solve the second problem which is the control of the main stream media by the CAGW crowd. The third is the totally biased/controlled state of both the research funding the peer reviewed publication. This last one is the direct cause of so called “97% consensus.” Academics in one field tend to trust that those in other fields know their subjects. It is highly possible that fixing this last problem will eventually lead to solving the others.

      • JC, agree with all your points. Trump busted through on #2 using twitter and rallies. The government could also, I think, to an extent by, for example, issuing a revised National Climate report based on the ‘red teaming’. And part of the academic/grant problem #3 could be fixed by executive order to the NSF. Problem is, there just aren’t many skeptical academics left to apply for such grants. Lindzen retired, Curry resigned, Pielke Jr moved on…
        Not going to get nearly 30 years of momentum reversed overnight, for sure. But working hard on key leverage points (e.g. Endangerment finding, models, sensitivity, renewable subsidies and intermittency) may hasten CAGW’s demise.

      • Rivstvan,

        Have you considered the risks (there are always risks), and the odds of successful outcome (it’s never certain)? As I said to Scarface upthread —

        If this is seen by climate scientists as an attempt to further politicize their field — much like the 1976 Team B exercise did to US intelligence — then many or most will rightly unite against it. Borderline skeptical scientists might avoid it. The news media will, of course, support condemnation of the project. Public opinion is likely to follow.

        It could easily become a fiasco.

      • There may be an answer to the lack of skeptical academics. If I remember correctly, Curry said that one reason for her leaving was that she could no longer advise her students on how to negotiate the CAGW (my term) mine field. There are bound to be those that believe in academic skepticism that would gladly research the alternatives if only consistent funding and publication opportunity were available. Hopefully the tide may be turning.

    • Example: 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 happened this century, yet except for a now fully cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip there has been no meaningful warming this century except by Karlization.

      I’m not sure this is correct — I’m looking at surface temps from the last few months (non-Karl data sets), and the last few months are solidly warmer than 90% of 2000-2014. It doesn’t look to be “fully cooled”.

      Even if it is true, though, does it matter? CO2 isn’t supposed to just instantly warm the atmosphere; instead the claim is that it causes the atmosphere to cool more slowly, with heat building up over time. The less time that CO2 has been in the atmosphere, the less time it’s had to do this. So on short timescales, natural variability can certainly overwhelm these effects.

      • Ahh. But that’s just UAH. We’ve already ruled out Karl’s NOAA set, so that leaves the following data sets:
        — UAH, RSS, Berkeley Earth, GISSTEMP, and HadCRUT, and pre-Karl NOAA dataset.

        Of these, only UAH shows that the past few months have fully cooled back to the level of 2000-2014. The rest of them all show warming.

        Is there a good reason to put more faith in UAH than all of the other data sets?

      • Windchaser, there is also HadSST3 which covers 71% of the surface temps. I clearly shows the end of the last El Nino perturbation.

        Sure. But it doesn’t show that the temperatures have cooled down to 2000-2014 levels.

        Out of curiosity, I ran over to the HadSST3 website* and checked their data. The last 3 months have been warmer than only 25% of 2015-2016, mostly the beginning of 2015, before the El Nino really kicked in. However, the last 3 months have been warmer than 98% of 2000-2014. It has not cooled back down. Even well after the El Nino ended, it’s remained warm.

        I encourage you to check the data for yourself.

        [*] http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst3/data/download.html

      • With the steady rise since the little ice age, what SHOULD you expect for the past twenty years, thirty years, etc? Then compare 1910 ton1940. What SHOULD we expect from natural variation on what we know to be a thirty/sixty year up and down cycle. When you add the two, and subtract the two, what SHOULD we expect from a natural swing.

        Now how much is your number greater?

        If not, or if only ten percent or so, then nothing at all unusual is happening.

      • With the steady rise since the little ice age, what SHOULD you expect for the past twenty years, thirty years, etc? Then compare 1910 ton1940. What SHOULD we expect from natural variation on what we know to be a thirty/sixty year up and down cycle. When you add the two, and subtract the two, what SHOULD we expect from a natural swing.

        Now how much is your number greater?

        If not, or if only ten percent or so, then nothing at all unusual is happening.

    • @ ristvan
      July 8, 2017 at 10:13 am: The Prof who taught me statistics said “use this to sort out methods and good from bad. But for your own raw data, get a real Statistician. If I can see the faults, how much better such people would be at skewering our opponents. Real stats and modelling verification people from outside the tent would do the trick on the incompetents we are dealing with. So long as the power lies not with them. The lie has just a few ‘foundations’, which justify the rest.
      I saw Mann’s bluster when caught in Congress. Make them fish out of water.

  8. Trump’s climate team need to address five questions only:

    1. Is the recent rise of global temperature (whatever that is) being fraudulently exaggerated (if so, why and by whom)?

    2. Is the anthropogenic component of global warming (and the certainty of its quantification) as against natural climate fluctuation, being fraudulently exaggerated (if so, why and by whom)?

    3. Is the detrimental nature of global warming to ecosystems and human populations (as against its possible benefits) being fraudulently exaggerated (if so, why and by whom)?

    4. Is the beneficial effect of rising CO2 on plant growth, global greening, global increase in tree number and rising crop productivity and marine productivity, being fraudulently downplayed and hushed up (if so, why and by whom)?

    5. Is the economic damage, the reduction in quality and reliability of electricity supply and (perversely) the environmental damage caused by the aggressively forced adoption of intermittent, unusual and expensive power generation technologies (wind and solar in particular) and unusual and expensive electrically powered automobiles, being fraudulently downplayed and hushed up (if so, why and by whom)?

    Greening of the Earth and its drivers

    Zaichun Zhu, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Almut Arneth, Chunxiang Cao, Lei Cheng, Etsushi Kato, Charles Koven, Yue Li, Xu Lian, Yongwen Liu, Ronggao Liu, Jiafu Mao, Yaozhong Pan, Shushi Peng, Josep Peñuelas, Benjamin Poulter, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Benjamin D. Stocker et al.

    Nature Climate Change 6, 791–795 (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3004
    Received 08 June 2015 Accepted 29 March 2016 Published online 25 April 2016

    Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services [1,2]. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

    • I’d recommend removing the word “fraudulently”. It implies both intent to deceive and to profit from the deception.

      For instance, we care whether the recent rise of temperature is exaggerated… less so about whether it was on purpose or not. Accidental exaggeration is still bad.

      But anyways, I think the Berkeley Earth study already settled that first question. The surface temperature series is quite sound. The satellite data, on the other hand… not so certain.

      • Windchasers,
        How about the Sea Surface Temperatures, which are commonly conflated with Land Surface Temperatures? How do you feel they compare with land and troposphere? Various alarmists have dismissed historical ocean pH measurements out of hand because of poor sampling protocols. Yet, the historical water temperatures were often taken at the same time and place. Yet, nobody has suggested dismissing the historical water temperatures because of poor sampling protocol!

      • BEST was rejected by every major science journal. Mueller claimed to be a skeptic, which was later proven to be a lie by his own words (in a previous recorded video).

        Despite that, Mueller went on a worldwide PR campaign before the paper was ever published or peer reviewed.

        Rejected by all major, legitimate journals, the paper was finally published in an Indian pay-for-play startup, which is now under criminal investigation.

        BEST is a joke. A sad, politically motivated anti-science joke.

      • Reg Nelson, with regard to the results of BEST, can you tell me who said, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” ????

      • BEST was rejected by every major science journal.

        Yes, it’s very difficult to get published in a major science journal. Basically impossible when your results are not novel, as BEST’s weren’t. They were quite similar to the results by other major temperature series. But that’s what we expect to find for any sort of red-team exercise.

        When your work just reproduces old findings, you’re going to be publishing in a lesser journal.

        I’m guessing that you’re the sort of guy who usually says “consensus doesn’t matter, only evidence matters”. If that’s the case, then you should be focused on spotting the errors in BEST’s work or coming up with a better temperature dataset. What you’ve presented here are just ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the quality of the work.

        You dismiss BEST not because you have some evidence that it’s meaningfully wrong, but because you don’t like it.

      • Yet, the historical water temperatures were often taken at the same time and place. Yet, nobody has suggested dismissing the historical water temperatures because of poor sampling protocol!

        I can’t quite see what the two have to do with each other. Sure, they may have been measured at the same time, but they were measured with different instruments. Some measurements are easier to take than others, with fewer calibration issues.

      • Windchasers,
        I think that you were responding to me. The point I was trying to make is that the SPATIAL sampling protocol for historical pH and SST were neither random or on a grid. The historical pH measurements were therefore criticized, but not the temperatures.

    • “In my mind, reversal of the “endangerment finding” is of paramount importance.”

      Agree strongly John!

      Here is an overview of the endangerment finding:
      https://www.edf.org/climate/overview-epa-endangerment-finding

      If empirical evidence/science were to prevail, this finding would quickly be disposed of. The increased risk from droughts for instance. We have decades of observational data. Global drought has not increased, in fact, the planet is greening up…… not in spite of but because of the increase in CO2. Increasing CO2 makes plants more water efficient. The worlds most productive crop producing area, the US Cornbelt has had the least amount of drought in it’s recorded history over the past 3 decades. Since 1988, only 1 widespread, severe drought, 2012. Of course we heard that this 1 drought was made more likely from human caused climate change.

      2015 and 2016 were the hottest years ever globally, while this area experienced record setting crop production and crop yields for corn and soybeans. This is just one region of course but globally, we have seen no evidence in the past 4 decades that suggests a trend towards increasing drought. The real science of significance related to CO2 and crops/food production……..that is provable outside the world of modeling, is the law of photosynthesis.

      There is no evidence that hurricanes are increasing, that needs to go. There is clear evidence that violent tornadoes have decreased. Meteorology 101 tells us to expect this. Warming the highest latitudes most, thus decreasing the meridional temperature gradient decreases energy for some extreme weather events like this.

      Stating that “damaging impacts outside of the United States may harm our trade, humanitarian, and national security interests” is absurd. There is no evidence of this.

      The amount of warming experienced over the past 40 years has been greatest at the highest latitudes in the coldest times of year……….in places that would consider this to be beneficial. Record high minimums have greatly exceeded record high maximums.

      With regards to global temperature. Why is it that the optimal level of temperature for life is assumed to be the temperature before humans began to burn fossil fuels? Same thing with the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the endangerment finding pertains to humans, it’s human life that’s most relevant to evaluate in this particular case.

      It is a fact that heavy rains have increased with the warmer atmosphere holding more moisture. High end flooding events have also increased as a result. Sea levels continue to rise and could accelerate a bit higher with increasing global temperatures. However, the current rate is something like a foot/century. We should use a realistic projection when assessing future risk. Doubling that would be 2 feet/century for instance.

      The problem is that these projections are based on busted global climate models that have been too warm. The potentially catastrophic sea level scenario’s are based on the busted models, not being busted. But they are busted. How is this not obvious to every climate scientist?

      Which is one reason why the red team idea will not work. If climate scientists have continued to use busted global climate models because it supports their theory, despite the compelling evidence that they are too warm and they already know the arguments of skeptics(deniers) and can see the same things, they have already chosen their path based on knowing the conclusion. A group of less qualified( in their minds) scientists telling them about what they have already considered and discarded will not change their conclusion. If anything, it has resulted in them looking for reasons to defend it.

  9. One of the problems with an adversarial approach is that the few times it has happened is with Congressional panels. The panelists state their (usually) conflicting positions, but the congressmen don’t have the expertise to call ‘foul,’ or probe more deeply into conflicting testimony. What is needed is an impartial ‘jury’ of scientifically qualified peers to question and pass judgment on the claims. At the very least, it would demonstrate where the consensus or skepticism is weak, and more research is needed. At best, something like a rejection of the infamous ‘Hockey Stick” could come out of it. There might not be an obvious winner, but the press could hardly ignore it. And, the public would be exposed to the unstated assumptions of the current ‘consensus’ and, hopefully, understand why many criticize the consensus.

    As stated by the author, the linchpin of the Armageddon prophets is the validity of the extant GCMs. Prior to convening this public panel, experts should be given the task of reviewing the various GCM codes, assumptions about parameterizations, and generally vet the claims made by the published modelers. Not unlike a teacher’s work saving tactic of telling their class, “Now hand your paper to person in front of you and I’ll read the correct answers,” different groups of modelers could be asked to review the actual code of ‘competitors.’ Unless the assumptions and implemented parameterizations are significantly different between different groups, tax money is being wasted in duplicate efforts. The people most competent to criticize the work of competitors are those competing for the same pot of grant money! If Congress were to reduce the amount of funding available, it would make the sharks hungrier. Survival of the fittest!

    • Clyde,

      Nicely said! I esp like the idea of having modelers review each other’s work. That’s the kind of “out of the box” thinking we need now.

      Also useful would be to have modeling experts from other fields look at climate models. Investment firms around the world pay millions of dollars to Ph.D. mathematicians and physicists to build trading models — to which billions of dollars are entrusted. It’s a Darwinian process which quickly weeds out the less competent. While the fields are quite different, these people probably could make an interesting contribution to a review of GCMs.

      • Great idea. Get all the modelers to agree that all the models need more funding.

      • Stephen,
        What I was proposing was that NSF would announce that only half the current modelers would continue to be funded. The decision as to which ones to continue funding would be based on applicants demonstrating superior understanding of the extant models, and the problems with them. They would be encouraged to discover and articulate the problems with the models they would be competing with, and how their future models would address those problems. That forces them to admit that there are problems and what they are (at least as they see them), to specifically address the problems, and demonstrate how they have improved the modeling when they submit their report to the funding agency.

    • I’d like to see funding allocated specifically to try to design a GCM with low sensitivity.

      It’d be pretty meaningful if such a GCM could be created, that performed just as well as other GCMs on all the other metrics (precipitation, ocean currents, etc.), but had low sensitivity to an increase of CO2.

      • My preference would be to build a computer model that is as accurate as humanly possible with existing computer technology — and determine how and why it differs from reality.

      • My preference would be to build a computer model that is as accurate as humanly possible with existing computer technology — and determine how and why it differs from reality.

        That’s what I see already, when I look at the scientific literature. It’s this endless iterative process of improving models, running them, seeing where they aren’t as accurate as they should be, and then improving them again. Lots of papers out there analyzing the shortcomings of models and working to improve them.

        From what I understand, the increase in resolution and improvements in the statistics of sub-grid parameterization are rapidly converging to resolve one of the big remaining issues: errors in precipitation.

  10. “Climate Scientists”
    You keep using that term and its companion “Climate Science”, yet the basic problem is the failure of CAGW pushers to produce either.
    The Parasites keep offering up legions of their fools and bandits, waving talking points and political agenda..
    The taxpaying citizen is still waiting for that mystic beastee…”The Science”.

    • John,

      You have a high bar for what constitutes “climate science.” I suspect similar standards applied to most fields would disqualify lots of folks.

      Nothing going on in climate science is unusual in the history of science — whether of the physical, social or medical kinds. Science is a social endeavor, done by people — not demigods. It’s an imperfect process at best, and individual branches often go dysfunctional for long periods of time.

      Climate science is significant (but not unique) because of its political involvement.

      As aveollila said upthread: “Let us science to do its work. The truth will come up like oil.” Like everything else, it just takes time. The political question is what to do now. The gridlock has prevented action to prepare for the inevitable repeat of past weather. When we get unlucky, the people affected aren’t going be interested in our excuses for inaction.

      • I cannot accept that the present push of political influence and funding into a particular field of science has ever occurred before.

      • “Nothing going on in climate science is unusual in the history of science ”
        Indeed; Eugenics being the last obscenity of such epic proportions.
        There is always room for mass hysteria in the affairs of man, how ever science as a social endeavour still requires standards.
        The lack of empirical measurement,a falsifiable hypothesis,reproducible results…Some social endeavour.
        Yes Climate Science as practised by the adherents of CAGW fails my standards.
        Considered discussion is impossible when one party willfully chooses to refuse to define their terms.

        Genuine scientists do not refuse to share their data and refuse to argue their position..Usually they are so grateful to find anyone willing to take an interest,that you cannot shut them up.
        Whatever Team CAGW UN IPCC (TM) are doing it is not science as I knew it.
        In fact the only “standard” demonstrated by all proponents of CAGW, is “Good enough for government”.

    • John,

      “I cannot accept that the present push of political influence and funding into a particular field of science has ever occurred before.”

      See the history of racial science in the West (including America). Stephen Jay Gould’s books are an easy introduction to this bleak history. Lots of lessons we can learn from this, but here (as in so many things these days) Amnesia Not Learning is our motto.

  11. I generally think this piece would be ok for most of these actions but not for the climate “debate”, I would go along the lines of Latitude’s argument of many of the debaters on the “red team” being balless, further going to point out that many of the people aren’t in “red” team… they are more “light blue/purplish” team.

    The light blue/purplish” aka people like Mr Watts are not willing to ball up and call these people what they are mother F***ing psycho genocidal evil people. I understand why he doesn’t want to do it and I don’t begrudge him for it. However it not helpful when the enemy gives you lots of throat and nut shots and you decide to not take them even though they are doing it and worse.

    You need a combo of angry people that are scientists but NOT academics. Normal scientists without any degree at all that can come in and bring and hate and logic to the argument in a way normal people can understand. They need to be backed up on the paperwork side of the house by good no hold bars academics.

    The biggest problem in the debate about global warming is, their has been no debate at all. This red team event would let real people get in their and go for the throat in front of the public at large and get those result pushed into the media… at the very least to trump himself. Any random high school student with a bit of knowledge should be able to easily debunk 90% of the BS that they throw down during this event.

    This is the reason they refuse to debate…. because they know they will be destroyed. If the red team is true scientists and they debate like true scientist aka no holds barred point out these people are evil eugenic supporting, etc, etc, etc. The debate would break out and they would be forced to respond and debate more… and thus lose more.

    However if this event turns into another light blue or blue academic love fest nothing will change.

    • To Temp:

      The refusal to debate is a Saul Alinsky principle:

      – If you permit a debate, that tells people your opponents are worthy of a debate.

      — Since the Alinsky style is to ridicule and character attack opponents,
      you would be contradicting yourself, if after calling them names such as “science deniers”
      and “pawns of energy companies”, you suddenly considered them worthy of a debate.

      You think Team B fear debates because they will lose?

      You are wrong — with absolutely no real science to back them up, they have already convinced a majority of people on Earth that man made CO2 is an evil gas, and CO2 emissions are “carbon pollution”.

      There has already been too much brainwashing and junk science for Team B to lose a debate … especially when they will claim they can predict the future climate … and so many people believe them, even after 30 years of wrong average temperature predictions.

      Exactly how could any A Team refute predictions of the future climate ?

      People believe in lots of things without proof.

      I don’t, but almost everyone else does.

      How can you stop people from believing in “climate change” ?
      (which really means runaway warming from CO2 that will eventually kill all life on Earth,
      although many believers don’t even realize exactly what it is that they believe in!)

      Climate blog for non-scientists:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • Yup.
        You arguing against pseudo science.

        It’s like arguing about natural food.
        And more importantly and precisely it’s about whether a government should
        require everyone to only eat natural food.

      • “The refusal to debate is a Saul Alinsky principle:

        – If you permit a debate, that tells people your opponents are worthy of a debate.”

        That’s right. Good post, Richard.

    • Cogent argument Temp. There has bee no “debate” about climate science. Since the late 1970’s it has been nothing but a political movement by leftist power seekers, especially the United Nations. The whole UN climate enterprise was, surprise , surprise, built an enabled by politicians with a goal in mind. Research the whole thing from the first Rio treaty, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to the IPCC process. The whole process assumed all of its premises from day one and listed them all in the UNFCCC founding documents.

      Nobody, from any point on the political spectrum questioned any of it, because it was a way to build a consensus around climate change for political power.

      We can argue the science all we want. It won’t do any good. The problems are with the politics. The only hope is that politcians like Trump and his appointees can poke some holes in the twisted, false premises behind all the regulations.

      • I agree with you and Richard Greene. I think we only need to look at trump as to see why we must fight bitterly. Trump went out and said “horrible, mean, racist, bigoted, etc, etc, etc” thing and won… the reason why he won was because it was the cold hard truth. Science is able dealing with reality as it is… not as you want it to be. As with trump if someone comes out with the cold hard truth yes they will be denounced far and wide by fanatics… but they will be a scientist and ,science, history and most of all reality will look to them with favor. Much like trump the we have long won the debate in science, its a matter of getting a leader to step up and rally the people to the cause. That leader will never be someone who is mealy mouthed and refuses to call a spade a spade.

        Trump maybe giving us the only chance to break through to the public and bring awareness to them. It can’t be wasted by sending up light blue players.

        Also to Richard Greene I would change this Climate blog for non-scientists into this Climate blog for non-academics. Academics have things like colleges degrees… but having a college degree doesn’t make one a scientist… in fact nowadays its generally proof you aren’t.

  12. I think two key objectives of this process will be 1) to deligitimize the narrative that 97% of climate scientists agree and 2) to expose the climate science cronyism that shuts down debate and skews the science in only one direction. These hopefully will give the ones controlling the purse strings the justification to shut down the climate science cartel so that actual climate science can be practiced.

    Also, encouraging whistle blowers to expose the systemic corruption with the commitment to reward and protect them could accelerate the unraveling process

    • I Came,

      You point to an interesting aspect of the discussion about a “Red Team”, seen in this thread. Lots and lots of proposals, many either irrelevant to or inappropriate for a “Red Team” methodology.

      As Joe Crawford said upthread: “’Red Teaming’ has now become a buzz word for some ill defined procedure that is supposed to be the grand solution for all problems.”

      There are no easy, fast, or cheap solutions to the public policy gridlock. Note that Joe is also the only one (I think) who mentioned that a real review will cost money.. The larger the scope, the more it will require. Berkeley Earth looked at just one piece of the puzzle (the surface temp record); it cost $2.5 million.

  13. It would also help if someone (e.g., Congress, the funding agencies, the journals, etc.) would also provide funding for detailed expert review and audit (e.g., Steve McIntyre’s) of articles prior to publication as well as the funding for replication studies. There should also be a requirement that no conclusions of any published article may be referenced as anything other that conjecture until they have been both audited and replicated.

    • Yep. Someone like Dr. Michael Mann will express absolute confidence in his crap and people will believe him. The more honest scientists will express uncertainty and the public will think they’re clueless.

      We don’t want a trial by judge and jury. We want a trial by judge only. We want the decision to be based on evidence not PR or emotion.

      It appears that Mann hasn’t produced the evidence required of him in his lawsuit against Tim Ball. link If that’s the case it indicates a guilty mind. It would be a very good place to launch an investigation.

      A few criminal convictions would have a wonderful effect on public opinion.

      • CommieBob andJoe,

        John Sullivan’s column — repeated at Am Thinker — makes many large assertions. Many seem quite odd.

        I suggest reading the rebuttal from Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie . I’m not an attorney, but it looks more logical imo. Skepticism in the climate wars is essential in all things.

      • Thanks Ed… Guess I didn’t do enough research before opening my big mouth. My bad!

      • there may be all sorts of issues with this Sullivan fellow, but irregardless, Mann has been found in contempt of court according to reports I have read. —- from the American Thinker Article:

        [He did even worse; he launched a campaign of punitive lawsuits against anyone who criticized him. He has sued Mark Steyn, National Review Online, and climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball.

        Mann shot himself in the foot with that last. For several years, Mann had refused to produce his data for the court (in support of his own case), claiming that it was “proprietary.” After missing a February 20th deadline, he now finds himself in contempt. Under Canadian law, the court is now required to dismiss the suit.]

        We know that he has been stonewalling the court in the Steyn case
        Or is the finding of contempt just made up by Sullivan???

        Don’t know how to put a box around the quote–sorry

      • JVCstone,

        “Mann has been found in contempt of court according to reports I have read”

        What reports – plural? There is O’Sullivan’s weird article (much of which is clearly false) and Timothy Birdnow’s article at American Thinker that quotes O’Sullivan.

        Also, O’Sullivan says that Mann should be found in contempt of court. He does NOT say that the judge as done so. The only news I’ve seen from a participant in the trial is by Mann’s attorney — who says O’Sullivan’s account is bogus.

        Some skepticism, please.

      • Mr. editor, Having looked closely at a page full of links, it does seem that all of the articles rely on the Sullivan story. I suppose time will tell if Dr. Ball’s claim that the terms of a postponement granted in early Feb were not met by the Mann side is accurate or not.

      • Hard to say where this is going, but under an agreement in February, in which a settlement was reached under the condition that Mann release the hockey stick research documents, presumably including emails, Mann has not done so by the date prescribed so by definition is in contempt of court. There could be many other twists and turns ahead, and Dr. Ball is far from rejoicing, but if the suit is dismissed, Mann keeps his documents but MAY be required to pay all of Ball’s costs. I’m just as interested in the dense cloud of fecal odors emanating from everything touched by McAuliffe in VA. If I recall correctly, after receiving massive campaign funding, to defeat the incumbent governor who was on the verge of requiring UVA to release Mann’s “stuff” while there, that process was shelved. May find a hit of Mann’s legal support funding in the above-mentioned miasma. Just sayin’…..

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website July 8, 2017 at 3:12 pm

        … Some skepticism, please.

        For sure. I have problems believing John Sullivan sometimes. By the same token, I would not expect Dr. Mann’s lawyer to fess up. He’s not much of a lawyer if he can’t put forward a convincing case, and yes, it will sound more plausible than anything John Sullivan says. That doesn’t mean Sullivan is wrong. I’m sitting firmly on the fence.

        I’m hoping Rud Istvan will weigh in.

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website July 8, 2017 at 11:56 am
        CommieBob andJoe,

        John Sullivan’s column — repeated at Am Thinker — makes many large assertions. Many seem quite odd.

        I suggest reading the rebuttal from Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie . I’m not an attorney, but it looks more logical imo. Skepticism in the climate wars is essential in all things.
        —-

        Did you not read the rebuttal? It does not address the settlement \ adjournment, or the conditions of that settlement.

        That is the issue.

        What exactly did Mann provide? It would be fairly easy for him or his attorney to provide a list. Have they?

        In the Steyn lawsuit, Mann has yet to produce or provide anything. His record of dodging FOIA requests speaks greatly to his character or lack there of.

        Why would you, or anyone, defend his despicable behavior?

        It’s beyond me.

      • Reg,

        “Why would you, or anyone, defend his despicable behavior?”

        That’s the classic climate alarmists response to skeptics who suggest skepticism about the most extreme right-wing beliefs. George is skeptical about the predictive ability of GCMs, so must be a denier of physics, probably a creationist.

        That I express skepticism about some guys weird statements about the case does not mean I approve of every one of Professor Mann’s actions since birth.

        That’s got to be a winner for Weirdest Comment of Thread.

    • Good ideas ! A few examples of deficient peer review should serve to bodyslam the credibility of the hockey team and justify that approach.

      • They’ve already been forced to retract and edit many signature papers… more isn’t going to change anything because in science, 90% of the papers they’ve written have been debunked through a number of events. The issue is they can keep producing new ones(ie unlimited money) and they are not held to account for their old papers.

        The idea that putting more “reviewers” or Clyde Spencer idea is those standards will never be met. They can’t even meet the current standards. So higher standards wouldn’t be met and yet those papers/models/etc would all still pass.

        Better “safeguards/reviews/etc” are completely meaningless in this debate because the people pushing global warming can’t meet the current standard and are successful. The only way for standards to matter is if you punish people for not following them. That means cutting funding, firing, and most of all JAILING. Until people start going to jail no matter how high you set standards they simply will be ignored.

      • Temp,
        I know it probably won’t happen. But, if you can’t be published or referenced until audited and verified that would surely clean up a lot of the garbage out there. Of course academia would also have to change their stupid method of ratings based on articles published. They might even have to do a little work rather than bean counting.

      • As with everything in the matter no matter how great you craft the system of oversight. They have unlimited time and money to scam it. Without punishment for the scammers you only encourage. I think a huge restructure of the system is needed. However that only fixes the problem in fields that are not actively working together to scam the system.

        In climate “science” they all review each others work now, they all audit each others work now. If you set new standard will someone like me be an auditor? or will be some Ph.D cultist who’s an “expert”.

        The system is corrupt adjusting the system so it looks less corrupt doesn’t make it less corrupt. Further by making the system look like it has very high standards you you in fact make it easier for the now fully corrupted system to crush dissent.

        Nothing I loath more then trying to have a scientific debate only to have some academics whine that what I say isn’t “peer-reviewed” or “published” neither of which has anything to due with science but everything to due with academic practices.

  14. If a viable Challenge Platform was to be created it would need to be peopled by genuinely disinterested parties. The problem lies in the word independence, where often a hyphen is inserted to in- dependence. And who decides?
    Otherwise it will descend into a jumped up version of WUWT or Not a lot—. etc.
    Perhaps the Engineering Professions could help here; for there we have pragmatism in tooth and nail and the ability to assess the scientific outpourings against the realities. Mind you vested interests also prevail here as everywhere.
    The moderator’s role should be of short tenure and hop around amid the credible institutions.
    All very difficult.

  15. Larry, you may be too pessimistic about the effectiveness of a debate under any of the above protocols.

    Your examples of failure are are not in the same world as CAGW factors. Moreover you see the battle as simply being left against right Dems vs Repubs. Their are four noisy elements here. Scientifically clueless Dems and Repubs political partisans plus scientific literates on opposite sides of the question. Let us conduct the debate only between the latter. It would be a quick decision with independent moderators

    Scientific proponents of the warming have largely been beaten already. Proponents confidence was quickly worn down after sceptics got seriously into the fray after about 2005. They had a relatively free reign up til then.

    The climategate emails reveal the depth and desperation of corruption that arose among their ranks when effective scientific criticism of the underpinning of their theory was put forward. Why (would one think) didn’t they simply counter the criticism with sound logical
    scientific answers, backed by convincing data instead. Einstein didn’t resort to vilifying critics, hiding, destroying and altering data. He didn’t threaten journal editors who would publish sceptics’ papers, or have reviewers reject them. It would only make sense to go to the extent of scientific fraud and malfeasance if they had no convincing support for their theory at all.

    The disastrous PAUSE and its implications during which CO2 increased 35%, resulted in numerous climate scientists coming down with the now famous Climate Blues. Oh they rationalized they saw the planet coming to peril and no one would listen, but this illness has the classic diagnosis in psychology, ironically, of деиуал. The pause indicated a much lower climate sensitivity that took the alarm away and to accept it, was to accept their long studies an half or if a life’s work was worthless.

    How serious a blow was the PAUSE? The unremitting continuation of it for a period equal to the period of the warming that was causing the fuss in the first place, was too much to bear. With the witless support of millions of useful idiots it was decided that a retiring NOAA scientists would simply alter the data once again before he left to get rid of the pause – Karlization!

    The fact that AGW proponents have absolutely refused to debate with scientific opponents ( having lost early ones) is further proof that their are no bolts in their quivers. A debate of any kind with neutral moderators would be refused by all CAGW scientists. Forfeiture is an unequivocal win for the other side. Just ordering the debate by Pruitt is all it would take.

  16. A simpler way would be to cut the funding 50% for all projects with global warrming, climate change or CO2 mentioned. The other 50% could then go to projects that not mention these words.

  17. A Red Team could work well. Were I on a Red Team in my field, I would know what to do. Moreover, I would be humble and truly be open to other points of view — while doing my best to crush the Blue team (as they tried to crush the Red team). For me, its always the “truth” that matters (even if I’m proved wrong).

    Heck, if I could do it, so can many others. The problem is in picking Red and Blue team members who are primarily interested in the “truth” and are truly intelligent and humble — as opposed to having “reputations” and “settled” opinions to defend. Not sure how one finds such people — if one is a politician (who has virtually no scientific ability or “smarts”), but its worth a try.

  18. WOW! Talk about running with a misunderstanding!

    The Trump admin proposal for “Red Team / Blue Team” had NOTHING to do with “Red Teaming”.

    BECAUSE the issue has become politicized, it was a call for a “Red” team (not to be confused with Red Teaming) and a “Blue Team”. (Try to find an analog for Red Teaming called Blue Teaming. It doesn’t exist.)

    This article is about an issue that is wholly imaginary. This sort of “Red Team” in reality was neither called for or even imagined.

    The intent of the “Red Team / Blue Team” concept was to get AGW alarmists to debate skeptics openly.

    NOTHING more than that.

    • Anne,

      “The Trump admin proposal for “Red Team / Blue Team” had NOTHING to do with “Red Teaming”.”

      Most of the people talking about this proposal disagree with you. See the links I give. For example, Judith Curry’s article at Climate Etc – which has a long discussion of how Red Team exercises work (she uses several of the same sources I use).

      • I am not very interested in whether other people misunderstood too (intentionally or otherwise).

        The fact of the matter is that a meaning was extracted from one phrase, and inserted into a similar but unrelated phrase which was used in (to the best of anybody’s knowledge) a completely different context.

        I have seen exactly zero evidence that would justify conflating the two.

  19. … First, what is the key question to answer? The answer should make a difference in the debate….

    Ah. We have hit trouble before first base. You see, there is no difficulty with answering questions in a way that will make the alarmists really happy. For example, one obvious question is:

    “Might Climate Change be a great danger to humanity?”

    And everyone would have to agree that it MIGHT….

    • Dodgy:Let’s see their evidence! For 40yrs they’ve been incorrectly predicting the disastrous future. Would we give Bertrand Russell’s orbiting tea pot the same type of credence just because it has been proposed and after 40yrs we’ve failed to find evidence of it?

      • Gary,
        While it is potentially possible to prove that the Abominable Snowman exists (by capturing one) it is logically impossible to prove that it doesn’t exist. However, after years of making a concerted effort to observe one, a reasonable person would conclude that the probability of one existing varies inversely with the amount of time and effort expended looking for one.

  20. It’ll fail because the team will be filled with lukewarmers quibbling about climate sensitivity instead of deconstructing the totally bogus temperature record.

    They don’t want to call fraud because it’ll invalidate their own fields.

  21. The red team/blue team process/concept is more than just a red team and blue team.

    There is a red team, a blue team, a moderator (think schedules, mandatory documentation, rules, consequences for shit disturber players who do not work to identify and if possible resolve issues and/or who bring emotions into an analysis), and processes which force both teams to answer questions and to ensure the analysis/discussions is documented.

    The objective of the process is to force the analysis to be critical, fact/logic based, and to quantify issues/differences.

    This problem is unique as we have allowed people to manipulate data and models which makes it difficult as there is an issue that the same people and/or their cohorts will not admit they have manipulated data and models (Mann for example).

    • Yes and attacking the models and proving them fake is one of the simplest from a logic standpoint to do. Once you debunk the models you’ve taken out 99% of the published papers on global warming. Its really a matter of mop after that. Further as its simple logic arguments you only need a scientist and not an academic to do it. Any good high school student should be able to deal with the model debate and crush them in it.

  22. “An extreme example of a failure of A.A. is the 1976 “Team B” project.”

    What?!?

    In what universe was that a failure?

    In case you haven’t noticed the cold war ended in large part because they couldn’t keep up. If we hadn’t followed the path recommended by “Team B” we’d probably still be in the cold war. (brrrr). Poland, East Germany, etc. still behind the iron curtain; years of opportunities for tensions to flare into hot spots; a less accessible China; etc. etc. etc.

    • John,

      “In what universe was that a failure?”

      The Team B results have been repeated analyzed by a host of experts, including both the CIA and outside pros. It’s not a complex issue. They made specific forecasts. The forecasts were wrong. Some are mentioned in this post. Others are available in the links provided.

      But the Team B project is like Climate Science in one respect. Despite the facts, true believers close their eyes and believe.

      “In case you haven’t noticed the cold war ended in large part because they couldn’t keep up. ”

      The Soviet Union collapsed as a result of several generations of economic stagnation, plus the effects of low oil prices. Again, this is a non-controversial conclusion among experts on the Soviet Union.

      Their long decay was seen by many at the time — those who were not blinded by the west’s propaganda (another similarity to today’s climate wars). Robert Heinlein saw it during his visit to Moscow in 1960 (although he got many of the details wrong).

      • Not sure where you read your history but thats a very abridged version of it.

        “The Soviet Union collapsed as a result of several generations of economic stagnation, plus the effects of low oil prices. Again, this is a non-controversial conclusion among experts on the Soviet Union.”

        Economic stagnation? Not really its called collectivism/socialism. Economic stagnation is the result of that form of government but really it wasn’t even economic stagnation at all. It was massive waste and destruction of wealth. Low oil prices were generally meaningless. They happen to a a straw that broke the camels back. Any thing could have push the system over the edge a the point it was. The fact they applied so much weight to the camel from their military build up was much more then the tiny straw of oil prices.

        “Their long decay was seen by many at the time — those who were not blinded by the west’s propaganda (another similarity to today’s climate wars). Robert Heinlein saw it during his visit to Moscow in 1960 (although he got many of the details wrong).”

        Yes many saw it… just like many see obama evil or global warming fake. The problem is what did the general public and academics at the time see? Well they saw successful socialism, a model we should all follow. They had the economics “nobel” laureate publishing a book the day before the fall saying, the USSR and US have equal and competing system. The vast majority of academics at the time believed that the USSR was going to win the war of ideas and that the US was on the verge of collapse any day now due to it.

        Their are literately dozens of studies that were done that if reagan did what he did everyone would die in nuke fire. While we can argue how right or wrong they were in this study they were 1000000% more right then the hundreds of studies that supported “peace”. In simple terms much as you say

        “Robert Heinlein saw it during his visit to Moscow in 1960 (although he got many of the details wrong).”

        This group saw it just had the details wrong.

      • “The Team B results have been repeated analyzed by a host of experts”

        The same kind of experts that said Russia hacked the election, Trump will never be president, OMG CAGW, etc. etc.

        LOL

        Oil prices weren’t that low, sure they were way down from the 80’s short lived peak but still higher than ’50 to ’70+. The economy was sacked because of A: communism and B: attempting to appear to match US defense spending.

        http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

        PS: If I read the sky is blue in a CIA report I’d get out a color chart for comparison.

        In God We Trust; all others bring DATA.

      • Temp,

        ” your history but thats a very abridged version of it.”

        Yes, that’s obvious.

        I wrote a few dozen words as a summary of a subject about which long books have been written. An “abridged version” is all that is possible in a comment (esp since people seldom read comments that are hundreds of words long).

      • temp July 8, 2017 at 12:53 pm

        … The problem is what did the general public and academics at the time see? Well they saw successful socialism, a model we should all follow.

        That’s sure not the way I remember it. The colleges weren’t like they are today. Nobody was publicly holding the Soviet Union up as a worthy example.

        Anybody who did refer to a successful model of socialism usually pointed at Sweden.

      • Really then why is that mobs of pro-stalinist/maoist would run wild? Why is it that Lysenko was taught in US school? Why is it that the NYTs needed to be sued into the ground to even admit that USSR had committed genocide….

        I’m not saying everyone believed in the 80s that the USSR was strong… however the very large minority(from the highs of the 60s) still believed it on the day the wall fell… and that small minority had huge power next to the power of who those who didn’t believe. One can even goto wikipedia which is forced to admit( i know horrible source but its just so easy).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse

        which includes great quotes such as

        “In a symposium launched to review Michel Garder’s French book: L’Agonie du Regime en Russie Sovietique (The Death Struggle of the Regime in Soviet Russia), which also predicted the collapse of the USSR, Yale Professor Frederick C. Barghoorn dismissed Garder’s book as “the latest in a long line of apocalyptic predictions of the collapse of communism.” He warns that “great revolutions are most infrequent and that successful political systems are tenacious and adaptive.”

        No shock it yale and I’m sure they could fill a book with harvard quotes from the 70s-80s.

  23. ¿Has really Team Trump proposed a red team exercise “to resolve the climate debates”? In any case, whatever the exact proposal it has already done good. AGW Team has strongly refused the idea, falling into the usual bunch of lies: peer-review and the Academies do the same work, etc.

    The warmist narrative has many faults. Things that could be, but not necessarily are right (as they say), and their “solution” is as risky and costly as you can imagine AGW to be (which they hide), besides being ineffective. Stronger scientific consensus have been utterly wrong many times, quite recently. And so on.

    A formal and “official” red team exercise could very well make this public and visible, of course without “resolving the climate debates”. Maybe it could suggest there are more sensible policy options, and more than one.

  24. Good Piece Larry,

    Most folks spouting off have never been on a Red Team and never been through a murder board.
    In The war gaming world “red team” refers to the guys who play the enemy. I was lucky enough to serve for a couple of full birds who served as commanders for the Aggressor squadron at Nellis.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressor_squadron
    In addition to imitating red forces we were also expect to come up with ‘innovative” tactics for red forces of the future. I was also exposed to what DOD “imagined” for the red forces of the future. In 1985 they had to project or guess or estimate or imagine what the soviets would have in 2000. This imagination drove the design of the F117, B2, and F-22.
    The threat of the future was modelled.
    Our response was modelled.
    Not of single one of these models could ever be validated. They represented the quantification of the best understanding, best estimation, best guess about FUTURE RISK. Risk that could not be estimated from the past. All we knew was bad shit was POSSIBLE. We prepared accordingly.

    That dark view of the future never materialized, because at the same time we tried to adapt to the future risk by improving our forces, we also tried to Mitigate against the future risk by undermining the soviets.
    There is a lesson there for the climate problem.

    Rolling the clock back to the 1980s, it was clear that there was a potential risk. Nobody could calculate this risk. We could draw up scary scenarios. A two front war: One in the Fulda Gap and the other in North Korea.
    What’s was probability of that? a two front war with both the soviets and the north Koreans? That catastrophic vision of the future, that black swan, DROVE THE PLANNING. Not only of force sizes but of the actual design. The B2 was designed specifically to penetrate the actual physical laydown of soviet air defense assets. Same for the ATF ( to be the F-22 in the end) The actual physical layout of the actual soviet systems ( in some cases we had actual captured equipment) was modelled and the simulations of the airacrft had to fly through these defenses. And then folks had to imagine how this laydown would change over the next 15 to 20 years. The scenarios were pretty alarming and there was next to no evidence that the future would look like the one planners projected. But we built planes that were adapted to the worse case we could imagine. Nobody building these planes or constructed these plans attacked models as “unverified” NOBODY suggested that we run a war to “test the models.” They were accepted as a planning tool. The best planning tool we could devise.
    In addition to spending boat loads of money to plan and adapt to a future that would never materialize, we also tried to mitigate against that future. That is, change the current conditions such that the catastrophic future would never happen.

    I view climate change in the exact same way. Its a mistake, I think, to focus too closely on what any model says or what the collection of models say. As they stand they are good enough to provide all the guidance we need to start the process of setting policy. They are constantly being improved, but its a mistake to give them too much weight. That’s the technocrat dream. That political governance can be replaced via algorithm.

    We face a potential risk. The magnitude is dependent on projections of emissions and projections of physics.
    Our projection of physics, like our projections of soviet capabilities can of course be on the high side. Predicting .2C per decade and having the actual figures be .17C is not a problem. If we predicted .2C and only saw .05C that would also Not be a problem. We didnt need our projection of soviets ( untestaable at the time) to be that accurate. It was a worse case and we wanted to be able to adapt to a worse case, however unlikely. knowing that models run hot, is simple for policy makers to handle.

    We are already making decisions about how we will adapt to future climate change and how we will mitigate against it. Models are a tool that inform that process. But nobody who uses models suggests that models should write laws. Policy judgment is required. We could not afford to build and maintain the defenses to counter a worse case soviet threat in the 1980s. We spent what we could to mitigate and to adapt.

    • “Nobody building these planes or constructed these plans attacked models as “unverified” NOBODY suggested that we run a war to “test the models.” They were accepted as a planning tool. The best planning tool we could devise.”

      You contradict yourself.

      This statement

      “Nobody building these planes or constructed these plans attacked models as “unverified” NOBODY suggested that we run a war to “test the models.”

      and this statement

      “They were accepted as a planning tool. The best planning tool we could devise.”

      Are completely at odds. In the first statement you argued that no one “attacked the models as unverified”. Yet in the next statement you admit everyone knew before hand and AGREED they were completely unverified…. so really the reason they weren’t “attacked” was because everyone was already in agreement that they were wrong.

      • Temp:

        Masher is like a dog chasing his tail — good work pointing out how he writes without thinking — so he manages to contradict himself in the same post — and shows us he has no idea what a real model is !

        A “model” of how future wars would be fought is not a real model.

        Real models are not based on guesses of the future (only so-called climate “models”).

        A real model used to design a plane, or components of a plane,
        must be accurate — based on reality, not a wild guess, or even an educated guess.

      • Lol agreed I was going to make a second post and point out the airplane issue… its one of the best to shut down “the models are always right crowd”. “Hey if the models are always right why have real world testing for planes? They should be able to fly right out of the factory with the only issues being parts failure because it wasn’t built to the model spec.”

    • To S. Masher:

      You almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about, with airplanes …
      until you started talking about climate, and then all four wheels fell off your science truck!

      “We are already making decisions about how we will adapt to future climate change and how we will mitigate against it.”
      My Comments:
      — We have no idea what future climate change will be, so it would be foolish to make ANY policy based on no knowledge. Future global cooling is just as likely as future global warming.

      — No one predicted the flat average temperature trend from the early 2000s to 2015, that may still be in progress — so much for the CO2 drives the climate fantasy.

      — There was no understanding of the temperature decline from 1940 to 1975 using the CO2 controls the climate “model” — until the bizarre aerosol theory was invented — aerosols dominated big, strong CO2, starting suddenly in 1940, and suddenly all the aerosols left town in a hurry in 1975 — only a fool would believe that, or you.

      “Models are a tool that inform that process”.
      My Comments:
      — Except that global circulation models are based on a wrong climate physics model, and that’s why they have been making WRONG temperature predictions for 30 years.

      — If the GCMs were real models, they would be based on the correct climate physics model, and make CORRECT temperature predictions.

      — You talk about airplanes as if you contributed something in that area, yet don’t even recognize the difference between a real climate model and a climate computer game merely called a model (GCM)?

      — How many of the plane designs were based on models that do not make correct predictions?

      “But nobody who uses models suggests that models should write laws. Policy judgment is required.”
      My Comments:
      — Only a fool would base government policies on wild guesses of the future climate, wrong for 30 years so far, based on a bizarre theory that man made CO2 will cause runaway global warming that will eventually end all life on Earth?

      — Only a fool would believe a climate change fantasy of runaway global warming, backed by absolutely no science, no proxy studies, and no real time temperature measurements, or you.

      • Richard,
        Not just “wild guesses,” but extreme, worst-case extrapolations intended to scare the general public.

    • Steven,

      I agree with much of what you wrote. But not this:

      “As they stand they are good enough to provide all the guidance we need to start the process of setting policy.”

      Climate models have no peer-reviewed validation studies equivalent to those used in other fields. I discuss this in some detail in “Climate scientists can restart the climate policy debate & win: test the models!“. At the end are cites & links to three dozen representative papers about GCM validation. It’s pretty thin gruel to drive global public policy on the proposed scale.

      For a brief and clearer snapshot of the evidence, see this describing the absurdly weak evidence Professor Mann gave the House to show climate models “have passed a number of impressive tests in the past”. It’s in section three.

      Section One is also interesting, showing that the citations Mann gives in the footnotes don’t support his claims.

      • Stop calling them models.

        If they make wrong predictions for 30 years, or 20 years, or 10 years,
        then they are not real models.

        They are personal opinions of what causes climate change
        — personal opinions of the people who designed the so-called models
        … that are obviously wrong based on 30 years of wrong predictions!

        Calling them models does not make them models!

        Models are a summary of a very well understood process.

        Climate change is not a well understood process.

        Therefore, there is no such thing as a “climate model”.

        Before there can be a real climate model,
        there must be a correct climate physics model.

        “CO2 controls the climate” is not a correct physics model.

        There is no correct climate physics model yet
        — I suppose there could be one somewhere,
        but no one yet recognizes that it is correct.

        Even if there was a 100% correct climate physics model,
        as the foundation for a 100% correct global circulation model,
        that still does not mean the future climate would be predictable.

      • Greene,

        “If they make wrong predictions for 30 years, or 20 years, or 10 years, then they are not real models.”

        They are models whether they are correct or not. Science has to start somewhere, beginning the process of hypothesis and testing. Aristotle said that rocks that look like frogs start the process that turn into frogs (or something like that; I read this really long ago). It was wrong, but he was at the birth of science.

      • Editor of …,
        Yes, whether good model or bad model, if the attempt is to simulate the behavior of a natural dynamic system, then it is a model. As the saying goes, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” A bad model is not as useful as a good model.

      • “Greene,

        “If they make wrong predictions for 30 years, or 20 years, or 10 years, then they are not real models.”

        They are models whether they are correct or not. Science has to start somewhere, beginning the process of hypothesis and testing. Aristotle said that rocks that look like frogs start the process that turn into frogs (or something like that; I read this really long ago). It was wrong, but he was at the birth of science.”

        If your going to get snippy about it then you should know that a model is under science a hypothesis. Further as the saying goes… no matter how many hypothesis you have they are still unproven(and thus not correct).

      • They are models whether they are correct or not
        =====
        Exactly……
        Models are an accumulation of all the knowledge known about something….

        …but the models, whether they are correct or not…..will tell you something

        The models total failure should tell you everything you need to know….
        ….they don’t even know enough to model it

      • Latitude,
        Models CAN be “an accumulation of all the knowledge known about something,” but they don’t have to be. Sometimes things are left out to simplify coding or speed up computation. Sometimes things are believed to have negligible impact and unnecessarily complicate the models. What is important is to define what the model is expected to accomplish and how the performance will be evaluated against that goal. Remember that “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” To be useful, one has to know how a model is wrong and to what degree it is wrong. That is, it has to be validated against reality.

      • Clyde…you just agreed with me…..knowing what to put in/leave out…how much of this or that
        That’s their best shot….”an accumulation of all the knowledge known about something…”

        Models are their best shot…and the models suck

    • Steven Mosher July 8, 2017 at 12:36 pm
      Good Piece Larry, Most folks spouting off have never been on a Red Team …

      I was in a war game called “Red Flag” back in the ’70s, flying a B-52 down in the weeds with the intent of dropping a bomb on an airfield somewhere out in the desert. Flew right over a red team radar site and had it jammed before it knew what happened, then took out a red fighter jet that was trying to get lined up for a shot at us. Dropped our bomb and went home. Lotsa’ fun, you red team guys.

      ;-)

    • Models weren’t needed to know that the Soviets were a threat. That was obvious from the evidence. So your efforts to mitigate those risks were warranted, and modeling was used to prepare, but models weren’t used to know that the Soviets were a threat.

      There is no evidence that climate change is a threat to humanity. Zero. There are only model outputs that say such, and you are suggesting that we use models as evidence that there is a threat. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Trying to mitigate risks based on no evidence is unwarranted.

    • Its a mistake, I think, to focus too closely on what any model says or what the collection of models say. As they stand they are good enough to provide all the guidance we need to start the process of setting policy
      ====
      We should set policy on backward third world voodoo witch doctor science….

      After all this time and money….you guys can’t even get a simple model down

      If you can’t get a model to come even close….you don’t have one f’in clue what you are doing, what the climate is doing, or anything else

      Models are the heart of it all………..and you dismiss them, because they are so f’ed up…..and want to set policy anyway

  25. What is needed is a: Well Funded Climate Challenge” —
    3 Components:

    1) new instrumentation and processing for gathering data such as ClimaCell HD WeatherLayer™ based on integrating ClimaCell’s proprietary wireless data with traditional sensors — prizes annually for best of class
    2) search for long term climate in rocks, trees, price of oats, etc. — prizes every 5 years for the best historic tools, proxy sources and results
    3) the Modeling Grand Challenge

    Create a master development data set for a well diagnosed period from just before the 1998 el Nino until 20 years after
    Make the first half of the data available to anyone who wants to proffer a model for the prize — they can do all the tweaking they want
    Then let the models run [without stirring the pot] until the end of the 2nd part of the data set — say 2018
    Compare their predictions to the data set — the winner gets the prize — say $10M
    repeat every five years until either there is a clear winning trajectory toward realizing the “ideal model” or alternatively, Lorenz is victorious and the utter futility of the concept of decadal and beyond models is exposed?

  26. I would submit that there is actually no need for a red team/blue team approach.

    What IS needed is a thorough review of my on-line post “Climate Change Deciphered” , wherein I prove that man made climate change is real, but that it is caused solely by the removal of dimming SO2 aerosols from the troposphere (since circa 1975. primarily due to Clean Air efforts).

    (It does need a bit of revision to include the fact that all El Ninos since 1850 are actually man made events, due to reductions in SO2 levels). (See my pre print at OSF.io –“The Cause and Timings of El Nino Events 1850 – Present)”. Earlier El Ninos would have occurred for the same reason (reduced SO2 levels) .

    Climate Change is actually very simple and predictable.

    Is there anyone reading this who can scientifically refute any of it?

  27. All we need is a practical example of how solar can truly work. Build a plant for producing solar panels. Put in sufficient solar panels to power the plant. Stockpile enough raw materials for a year’s worth of production, at the plant. Remove all links to the electric grid. At the end of the year, see if there is a year’s worth of panels, and make sure they work. If so, then replace all of the solar panels with the new ones from the factory, and repeat for a second year.

    This would prove that solar can be self-sustaining. A practical demonstration means more than all the words and arguments and debates that have been carried on.

    • Janice please contribute your own money for that solar experiment.

      A manufacturing plant can’t run on 100% solar power even if the panels are kept very clean and the plant is located in a very sunny, dry area.

      Did you ever hear of night and darkness?

      Not many days of the year would have 16 hours of sunshine needed to support two shifts.

      Three shifts would be impossible.

      Would there be enough power / proper voltage on a very cloudy day?.

      What happens if there is a brutal hail storm … or kids with rocks making trouble?

      And please start working on how humans will dispose of all the old / obsolete solar panels, and all the batteries used for electric and hybrid cars when their lives are over, without making the environment worse,

      • I didn’t think I needed a “/sarc off” at the end. I’ve been posting about the idiocy of solar and wind for many years now. Guess I did too good of a job at satire. I shall rename it “A Modest Proposal”.

      • Reply to Janice the Older American:

        It’s really hard for me to tell the difference between an educated person, like you, making a bizarre proposal with the goal of mocking the alternative energy cult …. and an alternative energy cult member making a proposal he takes very seriously.

        … So, when is groundbreaking for the new solar plant you propose?

        I hope you appreciated my Floyd R. Turbo-style reply to your original comment.

  28. I first entered the “climate change wars” when it was called global warming in the late 1970s through my analyses about using borehole temperature as proxy to establish long past temperature (it is a terrible proxy). After viewing a 1988 Bill Moyers “world of ideas” interview with Jessica Matthews, I got busy trying to counter what I viewed as misleading statements and misinformation. I wrote editors of newspapers and magazines. I wrote technical objections to papers in Science and Nature. Despite having relevant expertise I was routinely ignored. I learned that no matter what I proposed a blue team player could counter it with nothing more than “he’s wrong because I say so.” By the mid 1990s I had stopped what I viewed as futile effort.

    What is most ironic is that those parts of the blue story which I viewed as problematic 40 years ago, still are. The signal is very close to being not resolveable still. The problem of attribution, because natural variations and man caused ones can’t be differentiated, remains. If anything Hansen’s 99% certainty in 1988 has not increased with great expenditures of money on research, but has regressed.
    I suspect a red team exercise is pointless. The greatest enthusiasts for catastrophic global warming belong to one of two camps: one includes people who have a strong financial or other incentive (like power) to promote a panic if possible; and another group is composed of credulous souls. The credulous souls might be swayed with reason one might think, but climate beliefs for them are just part of a broader way of looking at all of life. They have no skepticism even in matters they know absolutely nothing about.

    One should also give up hope that demonstrations that proposed solutions to the problem of global warming are worse than the warming itself. If such a thing we’re possible then people should have learned caution about collectivism and central control from the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. Yet, the infatuation with such grows stronger.

    Sorry for my skepticism, but my guess as the most likely out come of a red team exercise is that the red team will too narrowly view the issue as a technical one, and simply drift blueward politically.

    • kilty
      There is a huge amount of wisdom in your concise July 8 comment.

      I suspect you are an example of ‘wisdom grows with age’.

      For me it’s a rare “cut and paste and read again regularly” comment
      from this website.

      I’d never seen the word “blueward” before,
      but knew exactly what you meant

      Please find time to comment here more often.

  29. How many warmists do it ‘for free’ ? How many Sceptics do it ‘for free’
    Its clear to which team is in it for the money, whether they accept that or not. maybe we should recruit a blue team from unpaid alarmists and a red team from unpaid sceptics

    • Answer, DMI added a post script stating “…We are experiencing some temporary operational problems and hope to get the ice sheet surface mass balance back online soon. …”. I missed that bit at first.

  30. Your bottom line seems to be that we can”t trust a red team /blue team approach because a politically correct outcome will be wrong and an incorrect one will have no significant impact. Very depressing. but wrong.

    To make this idea work we need two things:

    1 – both teams must be instructed to make testable, reasoned, predictions for fixed time periods. Credibility then depends on the accuracy of these predictions, not politics or personalities.

    2 – the existing climate models are mainly horrible – one I reviewed in detail was basically a 1960s Fortran card deck with watfor extensions added circa 1968/9; thousands of graduate student programming hours added afterward mainly to add bits in isolation, make outputs match historical data, or increase granularities in processing and/or applicablity, and an overlay added to use rdbms/parallel processing tech during the 90s and early 20s. At best these can be described as netting out to making the terribly simple stupifyingly complex without making any of it in any useful sense better as a mdoel implementation than the original deck.

    To fix that we need a new kind of model entirely – one that reflects data rather than theory. Imagine dividing all of the space weather affects, from maybe 250 miles up to ten deep, into one cubic mile chunks. Then imagine putting a sensor suite in each cube – and collecting data by the minute. With this in place, the models would then be based on measuring and forecasting energy flows from each cube to all of its neighbors. Since those flows re well understood such a model would provide accurate data and easily understood, easily tested, forecasts that could be extended (fanned forward?) over time to look from minutes to decades ahead.

    So can this be done? Yes: satelites can provide proxy sensor suites (or close enough to start with), and both Sun’s SPARC and IBM’s cell technologies provide the bandwidth needed for the collection, storage, and processing components.

    • Paul,

      “Your bottom line seems to be that we can”t trust a red team /blue team approach because a politically correct outcome will be wrong and an incorrect one will have no significant impact. Very depressing. but wrong.”

      That is not even remotely close to what I said.

  31. I don’t have time to go into great detail, but the criticism on the 1976 “Team B” project here appears to be drawn *entirely* from its ideological critics. It strikes me as being like letting Oreskes and Mann write your encyclopedia entry on climate skeptics.

    I encourage people to do wider reading on the subject. The Soviet Union *did* put their efforts into biological and nuclear weapons and strategies that would let them “win” an exchange, as opposed to faulty CIA assumptions that both sides sought parity, and post-fall records show this.

    Arms control advocates’ description of Team B *eerily* mirror CAGW advocates’ descriptions of skeptics. Simply taking one sides’ description of the other as true is usually a bad policy if your goal is to understand the problem.

      • You quote only Team A, your following statements read like statements of arms control groups at the time (specifically mentioning directed energy weapons and ABM without mentioning bioweapons research and MIRV research directed at targeting launch facilities in a pre-emptive strike).

        I don’t blithely accuse you of making things up (not being a mind-reader), I am accusing you of picking one side in a controversy and treating it like it’s the only side. I ask again for people to seek a broader view of history, perhaps of someone involved in the situation:

        https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/team-b-the-reality-behind-the-myth/

        The view that Soviet failure was inevitable and the implication that the Reagan (and Thatcher and other Western) administration had no impact is again the view of “Team A” and the arms control community, and not the *only* view. “Team B” was highly influential on these groups and helped form the policy of confrontation that deserves at least *some* credit for the weakening of the Soviet state. Obviously how much is also in debate.

        It is unfortunate that almost everything is a political issue these days, but it’s axiomatic that most people tend to adopt the views of their political allies and not many people do their own digging on subjects that are, in fact, substantially more complex than they think.

  32. Richard Green above says refusing to debate is an Alinsky tactic, and the Blue team have convinced lots of people regarding CO2 without any proof.

    Fair comment, but it assumes that Team A should debate in an orderly logical fashion.

    To take a different example, Mr Trump beats back the left not by debating them but by using similar Alinsky tactics. Alinsky rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Trump has just successfully brought CNN’s rating below that of kids’ TV, via ridicule and the reaction to it by the main stream media,
    https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/ratings-collapse-cnn-now-losing-nick-nite-prime-time-ratings-war/

    rather than by presenting his policy positions.

    • We don’t seem to be able to find a red team that can ever do that……you’re right

  33. A good starting point would be to lay out what are the agreed facts. Then lay out the theories, projections and uncertainties.

  34. I predict blue team will handle losing this slightly less well than HRC did in that event last November.

    • I am concerned about depending much on any computer models, I am skeptical that the Physics, Chemistry, and thermodynamics are not sufficiently known and any computer model is dependent on assumptions not real science. You will loose if you depend on computer models, which will claim whatever the modeler wants to claim.
      I would first deal with significant claims like those listed below which can be more widely understood:
      Do you still believe in the Mann Hockey stick?
      Do you believe the 97% claim to be valid? explain why when so many disagree
      Explain why the computer model predictions deviate so much from measured data.
      Do you agree 100% with Karlization of the data?
      Explain why old temperature data is adjusted downward thus exaggerating warming
      Do you believe the Medieval warm Period existed globally or only locally in a few places like London
      Explain why the reported warming is primarily in higher Latitudes, not in USA mainland, etc.support all the claims. Since the warming is mild outside the Arctic, why are dire consequences predicted where warming has been small.
      Explain why so many dire predictions by some scientists has failed like more Hurricanes, more Tornadoes, demise of Polar Bears. Arctic ice free.
      Are their any errors in the Gore movie, or do you support all his claims ?
      Are there any IPCC claims in the latest report that cannot be supported with science and require change? Will there be any adjustments to the claimed range of warming for the next IPPC report.
      Do you support the dire claims of a tipping point.
      Do you agree that CO 2 is a poison?
      Are their any benefits of increased CO 2 like increased farm production
      Do you support the term acidification of the Oceans since the Oceans are not acidic.
      Do you support the claims that the Antarctic collapse is in danger of increasing sea level dramatically. If so when?
      Do you believe the sea level increase is accelerating considering the fact that sea level gauges do not support this claim?
      What range of temperature sensitivity to CO 2 increase do you specifically support? How do clouds affect this?
      Will the impact of increased CO 2 diminish or continue linearly with increased concentration?
      What is the temperature impact of the USA withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.
      How do they consider the documented fact that that the geological history of the earth has gone through numerous ice ages, flooding of lands now widely habituated, and extreme temperature ranges.
      Do you subscribe to the Milankovitch cycles as having considerable impact on climate change
      Please explain all impacts associated with expected climate change.

      Of course there are probably other simple question to require the blue team to answer, preferably under oath.
      Don’t get into the weeds too soon, try to debunk the current dire claims made by Obama and the overall MSM which many believe and pontificate about daily in their talking points to mislead the public. Although the MSM will ignore the exercise, I think it would be good to get the blue team on record early on what claims they support and which are false.

  35. “A review of the climate forecasting models by a multidisciplinary team of relevant experts who have not been central players in this debate. Include a broader pool than those who have dominated the field, such as geologists, chemists, statisticians and software engineers.”

    That sounds like a Red Team to me … this is just another nonsense post from another elitist academic who doesn’t have the balls to fight for the truth …

    • Kaiser,

      “That sounds like a Red Team to me”

      I suggest reading the post again, but slower. A Red Team explicitly takes the Opposing Force’s side. A review board as I (and others) have proposed starts from a neutral perspective and conducts an investigation.

      It’s the difference between a fair judge and a “hanging judge”.

      • Does the investigation of the Challenger disater have any relevance here? Dr. Feynman, I believe, said he didn’t really solve the mystery, but that it was the engineers, who knew what had happened, that led him to the truth. They were either fearful of losing their jobs or other retaliation, but Dr. Feynman was willing to listen and be led to whatever the truth was. The others on the commission just went along to the Dog and Pony show, which was presented by the powers that be. Wasn’t it a whistle bolwer that gave us the Climategate emails, because he/she chould not take the destruction of science anymore?

  36. Larry,

    Once again I am struck by the sense that you don’t recognize the degree to which the CAGW side of the “climate wars”, in reality-land, is effectively chained to a “settled science” position, since this is not a purely intellectual debate.

    To me, nobody special, you are essentially removing the “burden of proof” that demands for vast wealth and power logically accrue . . though you couch the removal in terms of solving a “gridlock” problem. There is no such problem, if one does not grant an a priori phantom legitimacy to those demands, since the “skeptics” are not demanding that vast wealth and power be appropriated from anyone, or demanding that “alarmists” take any particular actions on behalf of the skeptics “cause”.

    It’s kinda like some guy walks up to you and demands your wallet, and when you refuse to hand it over, someone else says the “gridlock” is a problem that needs solving . . It’s not, unless the guy pulls out a gun or something . . And when things looked far bleaker for the climate crisis skeptics your characterization of the situation as gridlock that needed resolution (when I last tried to explain this “burden of proof imbalance” aspect to you), your position at least had some semblance of a “He’s got a gun!” rationale to recommend it. Now, it strikes me as little more than a plea to not hurt the feelings of a disarmed robber ; )

    • John,

      “Once again I am struck by the sense that you don’t recognize …”

      Perhaps you could quote something I wrote. Your comment doesn’t appear to have any relevance to this post.

      “someone else says the “gridlock” is a problem that needs solving”

      So you believe America is adequately prepared for a repeat of past weather? Such as a major hurricane hitting an eastern city? Sandy was just a storm and did massive damage to NYC. God only knows what a big hurricane would do to Miami.

      I suspect America will test your theory. Hopefully it will not be too expensive in money and blood. Perhaps you will post a mea culpa afterwards.

      • Latitude,

        “didn’t we just do that with Andrew?”

        Hurricane Andrew (1992) only brushed Miami. From the NOAA report:

        “Andrew was a compact system. A little larger system, or one making landfall just a few nautical miles further to the north, would have been catastrophic for heavily populated, highly commercialized and no less vulnerable areas to the north. That area includes downtown Miami, Miami Beach, Key Biscayne and Fort Lauderdale.”

        http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html

      • Andrew was a major hurricane and hit two eastern cities……Homestead and Florida City….all the way up to most of South Miami….I was hit with the north side of the eye wall at 136 st

      • I guess if you don’t know….Homestead and Florida City up to South Miami are all part of Miami. Miami Dade County…a suburb..they’re not some little podunk. they are just as built up and populated as the rest of Miami.
        So if you say “major hurricane hitting an eastern city”….Andrew did….It just didn’t hit downtown Miami directly.

        That’s all…..nothing to get worked up about

      • Sandy was not a Hurricane when it made landfall, period
        The impact of Sandy was more severe because NJ and NYC was taking a beating by a lingering NE storm that caused Sandy to linger and add to the flooding already underway in many areas. Absent a blocking NE storm, Hurricanes normally zip past the NJ coast quickly. Sandy lingered a long time and piled more water on the coast on top of that already caused by the NE storm. Remarkably New and bigger homes have replaced those damaged by Sandy. If you were not already aware, NJ has had even worse NE storms that actually wiped out the barrier Islands divided them into multiple islands. Of course the financial impact was much greater this time because almost every lawyer and Doctor from Phily and North Jersey have expensive summer homes on places like Long Beach island NJ and all along the coast

    • Larry,

      “Perhaps you could quote something I wrote. Your comment doesn’t appear to have any relevance to this post.”

      I told you the relevance, it’s in this (to me) bizarre insistence that “gridlock” is the problem that must be solved, rather than insisting the alarmists convince enough people to vote for whatever the hell they want done, like anyone else in a representative governmental system.

      Framing it as “gridlock” because they can’t get that level of support, and acting like that’s not a situation many “causes” face every day, is just plain “special snowflake” treatment for a certain advocacy group (you happen to agree with), as far as I can tell.

      You want that vast wealth appropriated and given to some people? Get the support needed like anyone else with a request for funding/legislation, I say.

      • John,

        I don’t understand your reply. I said why gridlock is a problem. Was I unclear?

        You said: “I told you the relevance, it’s in this (to me) bizarre insistence that “gridlock” is the problem that must be solved”

        Let’s replay the tape from my comment.

        “someone else says the “gridlock” is a problem that needs solving”

        So you believe America is adequately prepared for a repeat of past weather? Such as a major hurricane hitting an eastern city? Sandy was just a storm and did massive damage to NYC. God only knows what a big hurricane would do to Miami.

      • Larry,

        “I don’t understand your reply. I said why gridlock is a problem. was i unclear?”

        No, clear as a bell. You just don’t seem to grasp how a representative governmental system works . .

        “The climate debate has — like so many other policy debates — become dominated by a proposal by Team Trump.”

        Of course, just as it was “dominated” by the previous Admin . . that’s how our system is designed to deal with what you call “gridlock” . . we vote . . . Any of the “so many other policy debates” you refer to could be re-framed as a “gridlock” problem, by those who want their way and can’t get it through the democratic processes available, but that’s what those systems are designed to address.

        Many Dems (and establishment type Repubs) were obviously not satisfied with the recent National election results, and some went into tantrum throwing mode, and insist that terrible things will come to pass if we don’t depart from the Constitutional Republic’s proscribed way of dealing with our societal disagreements . . and re-framing the matter as a “gridlock” problem is possible, but it’s just fancy bitching about not getting their way, to me.

      • PS ~

        “So you believe America is adequately prepared for a repeat of past weather?”

        America is a very big place, with many potential “weaknesses” . .

        “Such as a major hurricane hitting an eastern city?”

        What city(s)? Make your case(s) if you feel some need further preparedness, I suggest. Such things are always worthy of consideration . . and not “officially” accepting the CAGW does not mean dismissing the potential value of further preparedness for proven weather risks . . or even more “extreme” ones if it becomes clear the potential is sufficiently probable at some point in the future.

        “Sandy was just a storm and did massive damage to NYC.”

        Not really, it seems to me, but I have no objection to the inhabitants taking further defensive and or responsive measures . . I just don’t think everyone in the country ought to share the expense equally, owing to the concept of CAGW. My roof might not hold up to hypothetically stronger winds due to “Climate Change”, but I see no point in people in NY paying for re-enforcement of roofs in the California . . just in case . .

  37. All Trump has to do is to require all taxpayer funded institutions, grants and all, to cost in detail their stated climate policies to comply with the Paris Agreement specifically and require that a record of their dependence on fossil fuels be transparently made public as they implement the policy.
    Whether this leads to research ships being required to be wind and solar powered, or whether these green scientists will take kindly to struggling to work in their compulsory EVs remains to be seen. However this should concentrate the mind to the huge increase in government expenditure that will entail.
    He can then require the Senate to sanction the funding required and the resulting increases in taxation. That should put the cat amongst the pigeons.

  38. From my point of view there are two things that need vetting.

    One is to establishing a chain of custody for the proof that CO2 is the control knob. I have not seen this from either side of the argument. I have seen some references here at WUWT about the proof being established with models but that is opinion without audit.
    The vast amount of evidence through research appears to all accept that CO2 has been established beyond doubt as the control knob. If CO2 is not the control knob the vast amount of established work falls apart because the basis was not robust.

    The second problem is, are the constant adjustments to temperature data sets justifiable given the raw data and nature of the raw data. Can warming actually be established. This is important beyond just climate change because we could be setting ourselves up for weather/climate disaster in the future. At best we are wasting research dollars if the temp records are not robust.

    • PDM,
      We know that the historical temperature records are not as robust as modern records. However, the alarmists use this less robust data to make the claim that the Earth has warmed x.xxx deg F in the last century.

  39. Simple solution – declare all state, government and council funding for CAGW is to cease and instead be diverted to institutions studying, identifying and mitigating against cooling (the greater threat to the people).

    See how long the consensus remains for warming then…… :-)

  40. The red team approach actually would include, as Larry recommends, a critical evaluation of the climate models and their forecasting skill. (I don’t know why he assumes it wouldn’t.) Also, part of the problem with the science in the IPCC report is the overconfidence with which its science is presented. I do not believe it can in any way be proved “wrong”…instead, it can be demonstrated to be biased in the direction of a specific outcome, with overstated confidence. The Red Team can point out that there is considerably more uncertainty in the report itself than is portrayed in its Executive Summary. I don’t view the Read Team as saying anything like “this is what we believe the climate system will do”, because (as Larry says) we would lose that pissing contest. Anyway, this is something like the direction I will recommend if I’m involved.

    • I would hope you would be imvolved…

      “climate models and their forecasting skill”…models are the accumulation of everything that is known about something…all knowledge is put into them

      The models lack of forecasting skills tells you everything you need to know.

    • Roy,

      “I don’t know why he assumes it wouldn’t.”

      That is not my objection. Alternative analysis methods (such as a Red Team) can examine almost any question. In the post I said the us-vs.-them framing used by a Red Team is not only inappropriate for the climate change question, it would almost certainly exacerbate the political polarization that has made it so toxic.

      I suspect that many of the people advocating a Red Team don’t understand that this is not a buzzword, but a well-developed methodology. It’s idea for competitive situations — from war to business strategy.

      Instead I propose a review board of neutrals — experts from a wide range of relevant fields, people who are not front-line combatants in the climate wars. Prestigious experts whose opinions will carry weight. Mathematicians, software engineers, people using models in other fields, etc.

      This is a standard tool in public policy. For example, a Presidential Commission. They have often been influential.

    • Roy, I too hope you would be involved.
      I would suggest not getting into the weeds in the beginning but have the blue team reply to a list of questions, since there are so many claims out there that need to be sorted out during the first stage. I think it would be well for the public to see first which of the claims the Blue team actually supports before getting into details. Although the MSM will hide the results where possible, it would be beneficial that the public realize which are false and which deserve further debate.

      Below is a possible list of initial questions:
      I would first deal with significant claims like those listed below which can be more widely understood by our Senators, and some of the public:
      Do you still believe in the Mann Hockey stick?
      Do you believe the 97% claim to be valid? explain why when so many disagree
      Explain why the computer model predictions deviate so much from measured data.
      Do you agree 100% with Karlization of the data?
      Explain why old temperature data is adjusted downward thus exaggerating warming
      Do you believe the Medieval warm Period existed globally or only locally in a few places like London
      Explain why the reported warming is primarily in higher Latitudes, not in USA mainland, etc.; causing problems with many of the claims. Since the warming is mild below the Arctic, why are dire consequences predicted where warming has been small.
      Explain why so many dire predictions by some scientists have failed, like more Hurricanes, more Tornadoes, demise of Polar Bears, Arctic ice free.
      Are their any errors in the Gore movie, or do you support all his claims ?
      Are there any IPCC claims in the latest report that cannot be supported with latest science and require change? Will there be any adjustments to the claimed range of warming for the next IPPC report.
      Do you support the dire claims of a tipping point.
      Do you agree that CO 2 is a poison?
      Are their any benefits of increased CO 2 like increased farm production
      Do you support the term acidification of the Oceans since the Oceans are not acidic.
      Do you support the claims that the Antarctic collapse is in danger of increasing sea level dramatically. If so when?
      Do you believe the sea level increase is accelerating, considering the fact that sea level gauges do not support this claim?
      What range of temperature sensitivity to CO 2 increase do you specifically support? How do clouds affect this?
      Will the impact of increased CO 2 diminish or continue linearly with increased concentration?
      What is the temperature impact of the USA withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.
      How do they consider the documented fact that that the geological history of the earth has gone through numerous ice ages, flooding of lands now widely habituated, and extreme temperature ranges.
      Do you subscribe to the Milankovitch cycles as having considerable impact on long term climate change
      Please explain all impacts associated with expected climate change.

    • If you are the Roy Spencer the scientist,
      then thanks for applying real science to climate change.

      If the Red Team was staffed with only educated scientists like yourself,
      I’m sorry to predict the “debate” would be lost by the Red Team.

      Thirty years of brainwashing in schools, and in the press, guarantees
      the Blue Team would have a significant edge.

      Plus, all the Blue Team predictions are for a catastrophe in the future —
      how can you thoroughly refute that without waiting to see if it happens ?
      … and it will be a long wait, because the catastrophe date
      is always getting pushed forward into the future.

      Here’s what I envision would happen:
      Blue Team: CO2 will cause runaway warming and kill everyone

      Red Team: CO2 might cause some warming, but not dangerous warming.

      Blue Team: We can’t afford to wait and do nothing !

      Audience Conclusion:
      – We have to do something in case the Blue Team is right.
      The Red Team admits CO2 causes global warming too.
      Even if the Blue Team is wrong, it’s a good thing to stop using fossil fuels
      and not hope they are harmless.

      The “debate” would be junk science versus real science,
      and real science doesn’t impress people like junk science does,
      because real science has:
      “we’re not sures”
      “we don’t knows”
      “uncertainties” and
      no 97% consensus

      The IPCC Report is not real science — it is junk science.

      Real science does not start with a conclusion like the UN did
      before forming the IPCC — a conclusion that will never change.

      Real science wouldn’t have the IPCC staffed with so many “climate activists”

      Real science wouldn’t let politicians write/edit the final draft of a Summary Report.

      Real science doesn’t release back up data months AFTER the Summary Report,
      hoping no one will read it, and spot big differences in stated uncertainties.

      Real science wouldn’t ignore data concerning natural climate change,

      … and be tricked by The Mann Hockey Stick Chart,

      … and repeatedly “adjust” historical data to show more warming,

      … and use wild guess “infilled” data for a majority of Earth’s surface grids,
      while ignoring more accurate satellite data as much as possible,

      … and claim GCMs are real climate models, even after 30 years of wrong predictions,
      rather than calling them failed hypotheses,
      or personal opinions of goobermint scientists,
      or computer games,

      … and then claim the future climate is predictable,
      with no idea of the exact causes of climate change,
      and to prove that — 30 years of wrong predictions!

      Red Team vs. Blue Team would be a waste of Green money !

      My first choice for government spending on climate
      would be to fire everyone involved with GCMs
      and compilation of the global average temperature.

      That will never happen — governments always seem to expand, not contract.

      My second choice would be firing half the “Blue Team”
      (existing government bureaucrat scientists),
      and replacing them with a PERMANENT Red Team
      who would be paid to second guess the Blue Team
      and prove the obvious — the climate is wonderful,
      getting better, and not changing in any unusual way.

      The government gets the science it pays for.

      So either pay for no “science” (wild guesses of the future average temperature),

      or pay for both a junk science (existing) Blue Team
      and a new real science Red Team.

      Not a one-time debate — a permanent job for the Red Team.

      • The Red team, could of course, provide data which proves that there has never been any warming due to greenhouse gasses., thus winning the debate.

        This data is available.

  41. I just want an audit of the data. All of it.

    My position from the very beginning has been that the atmosphere and land and ocean and ice and ALL those molecules and photons is just too complicated. You have to measure what is really going on from all facets.

    Yes you can build a complicated model of what “should” happen, but what “should” happen is just based on your biased theories. Maybe your biased theories are only half right. Maybe they are all wrong. There is no sense having a blue team versus a red team arguing about biased theories because that goes nowhere.

    We have to “measure” what is happening and then understand what is likely to continue happening. BUT climate science has done nothing with the data except adjust it to their biased theories and or hide all the raw data.

    Bring in the real statisticians. Freeze the adjusters out of the process. What does the “real” data say is really happening and what is likely to continue happening.

    Maybe we can even give Mosher and Nick a real job with this audit team so that they can be more objective for once.

    • You can’t audit leftists:

      Their paper files disappear until after the statute of limitations is up

      Their historical data on computer files disappear.

      Their memory fades away just before questions are asked..

      They take the 5th amendment — the only part of the constitution they like!

      Their computer hard drives “fail”

      They smash their old phones with hammers.

      Their computer files get “BleachBitted”.

      People who could squeal are threatened.

      People who do squeal are found dead.

      You need to study the masters: Bill and Hillary Clinton.

      Leftists may know squat about science,
      but they know how to stifle an investigation / audit.

  42. Kenneth Caldeira wrote an article at his website criticizing Pruitt’s proposal. Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology (Wikipedia).

    Here is the money paragraph, showing that he does not understand why the consensus of scientists can provide an inadequate basis for public policy — and why decision-makers use Alternative Analysis methods (such as Red Teams) even when their experts are certain (sometimes especially when their experts are certain).

    “Why do politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business? A little more humility would be appreciated. This is yet another example of politicians engaging in unhelpful meddling in things they know nothing about. Why is Scott Pruitt trying to ‘fix’ climate science. …”

  43. Most of the areas of agreement and disagreement are well known. Opening debate probably won’t accomplish much other than to invoke WWI trench style fighting. Actions speak louder than words. Here, the POTUS has lots of options. He could reduce the funding to the 20 or so centres all running projections. He should make them decide which computer models are closest to reality and fund only those in 2 or 3 centres At least one should be government run, and one university based. This would cause heartburn for many and force them to debate who is the best. Making them criticize each other would bring a lot of issues to the fore.

    There also is agreement about several aspects of the issue that are lacking and are essential to improving the models. The two most obvious issues are the role of clouds and associated impacts, and the role of ocean currents (including ENSO). That’s where the research funding should be directed.

    The multi-millions of dollars wasted on species research based on flawed models is where the real waste lies. Shrinking cod- really? A massive extinction event – really? Virtually none of these ridiculous studies are based on the known tolerance limits of the organisms supposedly impacted. How can one expound on the impact of climate change on anything if tolerance isn’t known? What about adaptation? What about range expansion?

    Trump can do a lot – effectively- but he should avoid setting up another dog and pony escapade of trench warfare.

  44. I am unsure of the merits of a RED Team BLUE Team approach. I consider that a back to the drawing board approach is needed.

    What is clear is that no one can agree on the temperature of the globe, not only between data sets, but also over time (eg., the temperature for the 1930s/40s has been altered a dozen or more times) . If we cannot agree on that, what hope is there of resolving issues?

    Science is about experimentation and it is about time that an experiment was carried out to see how reliable the present day temperature data sets truly are. Just a simply SANITY CHECK could quickly determine whether AGW is over hyped.

    The most sensible approach to making progress would be to identify say the 100 to 150 most pristine weather stations (best sited, no station moves, no encroachment of UHI/material change in land use/planting of trees, best reporting/record keeping practices etc), and retro fit these stations with precisely the same type of thermometer used by the station in the 1930s/1940s (calibrated in Fahrenheit or Centigrade as per the historic usage at each station) using precisely the same type of shelter and then observe the temperatures using precisely the same practices as were used by that station in the 1930s/1940s (eg., the same TOB as historically used at the station in question). We could then compare RAW observational data with RAW observational data, with no adjustments whatsoever (since there would be no need to adjust for UHI, station moves, equipment change, TOB etc).

    These stations would only be situated in the Northern Hemisphere since there is no worthwhile historic data of the Southern Hemisphere. There would be no attempt to produce a Northern Hemisphere data set. There would be no need to produce an ideal spatial coverage merely a representative sample, say 20 stations in the US, a couple in Greenland, 6 or 8 in England and Scotland, 10 in Germany, France etc 30 or so in Russia and China etc. Just go across the Northern Hemisphere using a broadly representative sample of mid and high latitude stations.

    One would simply compare each station with its historic record and see how much the station had truly warmed since the late 1930s/early 1940s.

    These would be a SANITY CHECK. let’s see with the bulk of these stations show significant warming (eg. 0.5 to 0.8 degC above 1930s/1940s high), or only insignificant warming say 0.3degC or less since the 1930s/1940s high). Within a short period such as 5 years, we would have a very good grasp on the extent of warming from the highs of the 1930s/1940s.

    if the majority of stations do not show significant warming since the highs of the 1930s/1940s, we can quickly rule out alarm over AGW since we would be fairly sure that over a period during which man has emitted about 96% of all manmade CO2, there is little if any warming.

    I would suggest that such a simple experiment is the best approach to get to the heart of the issue. The surface station project has already done the US audit so it would be very easy to identify the 20 most pristine stations in the US. It would not be difficult for each Met Office in each country to carry out a similar audit so as to identify the most pristine stations in each country.

    • Richard,
      You are assuming that any modern mercury thermometers would have the same calibration as the historical thermometers, which they probably don’t. Unless someone saved the original thermometers and put them back in service, your elaborate scheme wouldn’t tell us any more.

      • Climate science today has broken into two tribes

        By definition the consensus side is all on the same page. That is one side.
        The skeptic side has many different theories. Many are some percent on the consensus side. Some skeptic who promotes 1.6 degrees warming from doubling CO2 is an 80% consensus climate person.

        Bill Gray said that is way too high. Dr Neil Frank says CO2 will not and has not caused the natural warming.

      • You are assuming that any modern mercury thermometers would have the same calibration as the historical thermometers, which they probably don’t.

        Modern thermometers and historical thermometers are calibrated to the boiling point of water and the freeze thaw point of water. That has not changed. It is linear in between and beyond. The modern thermometers are likely more accurate, but the conditions at each location likely causes more unknowns than any error in the thermometer readings.

      • popesclimatetheory,
        The point that you missed is that is used to be common practice to determine what the thermometer read at the calibration temperatures and then apply a correction for air temperatures. However, that wasn’t always done, particularly in some backwater locations. Lacking the original thermometers, or at least metadata to verify that they had been calibrated, and corrected temperatures were recorded, you can’t be certain of what the actual temperatures were.

      • I don’t see any problem with calibration.

        The retrofit thermometers would be calibrated as per the standards and practices that each country used in the 1930s/1940s.

        The 1 atmosphere melting point of pure ice and boiling pure water has not changed over time. Some countries might have used the triple point of water for calibration purposes, one would just need to check what practice and procedure was used in each country and replicate it.

        Any calibration error is likely to be measured in hundredths of a degree, and likely to be equally distributed thereby not presenting any significant problem

        I have suggested 100 to 150 pristine stations, but it is probable that it could be done with as little as 50 stations.

        What is needed is good high quality data, rather than the sow’s ear of endlessly adjusted and smoothed data.

        As per the recent article, it is clear that all or almost all the ‘observed’ warming is due to the endless adjustments to the data sets (by which I include the station drop outs and the growing usage of airport stations over time). Thus, the issue is essentially is simple: are the adjustments that have been made valid, are they improving the data?

        I suspect that if e were to perform the experiment, it would be seen that very few stations had warmed by more than 0.2 degC since the station historic high of 1930s/1940s (as appropriate at each station).

      • Richard,
        See my response to popesclimate theory. Yes, thermometers made in the mid-20th century probably only needed corrections of the order of magnitude of the precision of the graduations. However, going farther back in time, the manufacturing operations probably produced a larger variation. My point was, that without the original thermometers, there is an unresolvable uncertainty.

  45. First off, the CAGW crowd is a suicidal cult. Their very existence depends on them being right.

    (This is not original to me)

    Arguing with a liberals like playing chess with a pigeon.

    They strut around with their chest puffed out, knock over the pieces, and then shit on the board.

    Good luck with debating them. I suspect that it is a fools errand.

  46. Stunning amount of energy being consumed around this strawman. The “Red Team” or “Team B” is not seen as the solution, but a tool to help shift perspectives that are entrenched, so that another look may provide information not seen before to help with the solution. It is a perfectly valid approach, but will be resisted due to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

    • Engineer,

      “but a tool to help shift perspectives that are entrenched, so that another look may provide information not seen before to help with the solution.”

      There are scores of different versions of this idea floating about. There are probably a dozen on just this thread alone. What makes your view definitive over all the others?

      • Editor of the Fabius Maximus website,

        Did I say my view was definitive? Perhaps it is, or perhaps it isn’t. It is another component in the tool kit. Usually, no one demands a definitive proof that I have chosen the correct tool, although I have had this happen from time to time by managers who have distinguished themselves by their actions to be high priests of the Peter Principle. Your mileage may vary, or perspective, depending on the circumstances. But I have yet seen no reason to exclude this tool. It is, as I pointed out before, not the solution, but a possible way to illuminate the path to a solution. Good hearing from you in any case.

    • You wrote “another look may provide information not seen before to help with the solution. It is a perfectly valid approach but will be resisted due to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy”

      Which is why the model that I have been touting in my Post “Climate Change Deciphered”.needs to be seriously considered. It is a completely different paradigm, supported by empirical data that the Bureaucracy cannot refute.

  47. “But there is no enemy organization in the climate debates”
    The climategate emails showed that there are- journal gate keepers and “those in the pay of big oil”. If anything, this stupidity gets reinforced with a red team but policy makers need a team that would find flaws with the consensus. Your analogy fails because the red team is to support the null hypothesis ie nothing that needs immediate intervention is happening.

  48. Robert
    Can you clarify where you found in the climate gate emails showed who is in the pay of big oil (I read a lot of them and all I saw was conniving, distorting the facts and blackballing anyone who did not support their agenda.
    Even if BIG Oil is involved, there is nothing illegal or unprofessional about any company financing climate research to protect their stockholders interests.

  49. I think Trump needs to run a TV documentary about his climate issue.

    He is under severe criticism for his policy on climate change. He must defend his standpoint and explain to the world why he decided to stay away from Paris agreement. That documentary should be widely publicised all over the media in a way that most people around the world become aware what is happening with the Climate Science related research and its economic implications. In that documentary, Donald Trump would present some video clips and interviews from renowned well-reputed scientists, in support. Those clips/ interviews will definitely strengthen his standpoints on climate issues. It will also address common questions as often used to promote AGWC propaganda. Those are:
    1. 97% consensus.
    2. Future of our children and grandchildren.
    3. Global extremes.
    4. Can we explain natural variation part in climate? Can model capture those?
    5. If we can not explain what is the role of the sun and volcano upto present day then how can the model predict the future without knowing the influence of natural factor?

    Those will be prepared in a very clear and concise way thinking in mind about general public. I strongly urge Donald Trump to prepare and run that documentary to stop negative promotion against him. That documentary where Trump will be explaining his policy on climate with supporting evidences could be a step forward to climate science (which is misrepresented to general public for so long).

  50. We know that the US has not warmed since the 1930s. The US has the best sampling and best temperature data of any continent, so the first questions I would ask are:

    Whilst the US is only a relatively small percentage of the land mass/area of the Northern Hemisphere, can anyone detail valid reasons as to why the behavoir of the US would not be representative of the land mass/area of the Northern Hemisphere?

    The US has mountain ranges, valleys, rivers, lakes, deserts, coastal regions, forests, plains, agriculture etc. Its geographical and topographical features are not in any way unusual or unique, and would appear typical of the land making up the Northern Hemisphere.

    Is there any valid reason why the US should be an outlier in its behavoir? If there is a valid reason, what is the reason?

    What is the reason why the US has not warmed, but the rest of the Northern Hemisphere has warmed (if indeed the NH has truly warmed)?

    • You cannot compare the USA of the 1930’s with the USA of today. In 1959 the composition of the USA was drastically altered by the addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states. Because of Alaska’s size and it’s high latitude position, the “average” temperature of the USA changes.

    • Richard,
      I suggest that you look at the climate zone animation recently provided by David Middleton. Unless the US has the same climate zones, and in the same areal proportion as the rest of the northern hemisphere, the US would not be a representative sample.

      • “Unless the US has the same climate zones, and in the same areal proportion as the rest of the northern hemisphere, the US would not be a representative sample.”

        Yeah, but the U.S. temperature profile resembles temperature profiles from around the northern hemisphere, so the U.S. surface temperature profile *does* represent the rest of the northern hemisphere.

        Here’s an example of the 1999 Hansen U.S. surface temperature chart:

        And a surface temperature chart from Finland, almost half-way around the world from the U.S.:

        Do you see the similarities?

        There are lots of other charts of countries in both hemispheres that have this same profile: the 1930’s being as hot or hotter than subsequent years. None of these charts resembles the Global Hockey Stick surface temperature chart.

      • TA,
        Yes, I see the similarities. However, they are NOT the same. Unless you are begging to be criticized by the alarmists for poor sampling protocol, I suggest that the US NOT be used as a proxy for the entire northern hemisphere.

      • Of course, Climate is regional, not global, and of course, the impact of Climate change is regional, not global, such that there has never been GLOBAL warming this past 70 years or so, but my point is that the (contiguous) US covers a wide latitude band (or at any rate a sufficiently wide latitude band to be representative of the latitudes at which most Northern Hemisphere people live) and has a wide variety of geographical and topographical features, and a range of climatic zones.

        The US is a very divers country and not like say Luxembourg or Denmark, not a small island such as Iceland, not a country like the UK which is heavily influenced by one particular sea and the Gulf Stream etc.

        Whilst I am only interested in the Northern Hemisphere, because the Southern Hemisphere is largely ocean and without good data (spatial and historic), the US is a very diverse country unlike say Australia.

        CO2 is (at high altitude) a well mixed gas, and its effect (subject feedbacks) should be the same across the entirety of the Northern Hemisphere (at any rate in the populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere). If a significant land mass fairly typical of the Northern Hemisphere and over which we have the best data is not warming, this seriously calls into question whether other areas of the Northern Hemisphere are truly warming or whether it is perceived that those areas are warming only because of poor data.

        TA has pointed out Finland, but the same is so in Iceland and Greenland which both show their warmest era to be the late 1930s/1940s, and Russia has noted that their high latitude stations are gradually dropping out of the data sets, and these stations show no warming since the 1940s.

      • Richard,

        There is no doubt that there are problems with a changing meteorological network in the northern hemisphere, and a scarcity of good stations in the southern hemisphere. But, a proposal to use the US as a proxy for the northern hemisphere is fraught with problems greater than changing station siting or density.

        For starters, the topography of the US is unique, with major NS mountain chains, the California-Oregon Coast Range, the Rocky Mountains, and the Appalachian Mountains intercepting the prevailing west to east winds and storm systems. That creates rain shadows that impact humidity and temperature. The US is on the east side of the very wide Pacific ocean, while Europe is on the east side of a narrower Atlantic. Much of Western Europe is, however, moderated in temperature by the tropical Gulf Stream. The European-Asia land mass is larger than North America, leading to Winter temperatures in Nova Sibersk that make Minnesotans envious.

        The bottom line is that the meteorological monitoring system was never intended for climatological studies and attempting to press it into service for such is a classic case of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Mosher’s self-congratulatory remarks not withstanding.

      • Richard,

        You said, “CO2 is (at high altitude) a well mixed gas, and its effect (subject feedbacks) should be the same across the entirety of the Northern Hemisphere (at any rate in the populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere).”

        Apparently you have not seen the 2 1/2D animation of CO2 derived from the OCO-2 satellite. It is obvious from the animation and other maps that there are measurable variations and generally the CO2 concentrations seem to be lower at higher elevations. You do not provide a definition of “well mixed.” However, CO2 is anything but uniform across “the entirety of the Northern Hemisphere.”

      • Of course I have seen the OCO-2 data, and commented a number of times on it. Everything is relative and what is sufficient for practical purposes.

        Essentially at high altitude, CO2 varies between about 385 ppm to about 405 ppm. Say as a ball park figure, about 395 +/- 10 ppm.

        Is that well mixed? I would say yes for practical purposes, since there is relatively little forcing over a +/- 10 ppm range.

        At low altitude CO2 can vary by about 350 ppm (or even more). So for example one can see ranges of CO2 varying between say about 300ppm and 650 ppm. That I would not say is well mixed.

        So for example, see CO2 data from Giessen from samples taken at low altitude. This example is not the most extreme variation that I have seen.

        It is because the high variability of Co2 at low altitude that the IPCC dismisses the Beck historical chemical reconstruction of CO2 levels as not being representative of CO2 levels at any given time.

      • Clyde

        You state:

        The bottom line is that the meteorological monitoring system was never intended for climatological studies and attempting to press it into service for such is a classic case of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear</blockquote.

        I fully concur with that observation, and that is the root of the issue; the data we posses is not fit for scientific purpose, and that is why so many are sceptical about the claims underlying AGW.

        You state:

        But, a proposal to use the US as a proxy for the northern hemisphere is fraught with problems greater than changing station siting or density.

        I am not going as far as saying that the US is a proxy, still less a good proxy for all the Northern Hemisphere. What I saying is that we have the best and most complete data on the US, and this data suggests that there is no warming since the highs of the 1930s, and may be even slight cooling, and that there is no obvious reason why the US, which is not an insignificant land mass and fairly typical of land masses in the Northern Hemisphere, should be an outlier such that it calls into question the claim that the rest of the Northern Hemisphere is truly warming, and calls into question whether there is simply a perception of warming due to poor quality and inadequate data and/or the manner in which that data is presented (by which I include all adjustments, homenisation, siting issues, UHI, station drop outs, the change to more airport stations and less rural station data etc).

        I consider there needs to be strong evidence as to why the US should be an outlier, and I have seen none produced.

      • Richard V, just follow the url in my name. 3 pages with various averages of the air force’s surface data set, plus even deeper reports at SourceForge. I do A lot of reporting at the continent and larger scales, as well as lat bands, and boxes. Get the beta reports, and I will answer any question you have.

        There is warming, but it is almost all natural, min T just follows dew point temps, and moving the warm pools in the ocean around changes the distribution over land, and that changes the land average temp, and gat.

    • –Clyde Spencer
      July 9, 2017 at 7:57 am

      gbaike,
      UHI comes under the description of land-use changes, which rarely gets mentioned by the most rabid CO2 extremists.–

      Land use generally related to land use which increases CO2. UHI effect doesn’t cause a global increase in temperature. For couple reason, one human live in small area of the world- a small part of the land area. And Earth is mostly covered by oceans- or land area temperature is insignificant in terms of global temperature. Or global land area temperature average temperature isn’t 15 C. Or reason Earth average temperature is 15 C, is due to the high average temperature of the vast tropical ocean region.

      • gbaikie,

        While land clearing for agriculture alters the local carbon cycle by substituting fast-growing cultivars, which use CO2 differently than trees, plowing and tilling also change the surface reflectivity by exposing bare soil. Soils can vary from light tan (relatively high reflectivity), to black (very low reflectivity). If crop residue is burned, which used to be common for rice in northern California, then the ash also makes for low reflectivity for a period of time, increasing the absorption of sunlight. The bottom line is that the reflectivity (and heating)is probably more variable than prior to cultivation, particularly if grasslands or evergreens were converted to agricultural fields.

        The impact of UHI is still out to jury, at least in my mind. If one looks at major metropolitan areas in the US, such as Los Angeles or Silicon Valley, areas that were formerly either natural, or wheat and fruit orchards, are now covered in concrete and asphalt. That is, hundreds of square miles have been converted to dark, heat-retaining surface covers with little transpiration compared to the past. While BEST denies having found an influence of UHI beyond the built up areas, I find it improbable that the heated air doesn’t warm rural areas downwind. NASA studies have confirmed alteration of the microclimate downwind for tens of miles from Atlanta (GA).

    • Richard Verney,

      You said, “I consider there needs to be strong evidence as to why the US should be an outlier, and I have seen none produced.”

      For what it is worth, three or four years ago I attended a local panel discussion on ‘climate change.’ One of the panel members was the meteorologist for Wright-Patterson AFB (Dayton, OH). He showed a slide of the high and low temperatures for the base for the last 50 years. There was no discernable trend for either series. Being a military installation, there has been no encroachment by urbanization. The officers would frown on losing their golf course! So, the UHI effect may be stronger than usually acknowledged because civilian airports are rarely protected in the same manner from development. It is only anecdotal, but it is something someone should probably explore.

  51. The debate has been going on for decades and lately has become more of a religious debate then a science debate. Religious debates have no end. The problem with the science is that one cannot perform definitive experiments with global climate. We cannot run decades of climate progression over again with variables set differently so as to ascertain their effect.

  52. The red/blue team will not work because ‘global warming’ has become a political issue. That means that the findings of one ‘team’ or the other will be dismissed depending upon ones political outlook.

    It’s a typical scientific solution to problem that scientists don’t understand.

    • 3×2,
      If the Red Team won the debate, then it would at least give us the satisfaction of being able to call the other political side “deniers.” Currently, they are being insufferably pretentious because they claim support from the infamous 97%. Pull that rug out from under them, and then they would have to resort to being honest — they have an unprovable belief system that freedom of religion allows them to enjoy.

      • Blue Team: 100 years from now the oceans will turn red.

        okay, Red Team, now prove us wrong.

        How does one debate predictions of the future?

        Why should one debate predictions?

  53. Above, there are comments to the effect that modeling and its critical evaluation would be key to the red team blue team approach. Fair enough, but another key issue IMO, is a proper historical perspective. There are excellent oxygen isotope data to show that natural variability between glacial and interglacial periods may be 10 deg C. On a shorter timeframe, Andy May reviewed the data to show how the Holocene maximum was warmer than the present. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/08/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-3-the-nh-and-arctic/ This display of natural variability is key to demonstrate that present models with only minor natural variability programmed in are erroneous. It is also the case that in some periods, there is evidence for fast changes over short time periods. http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/03/already-285-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.Y6ZMUf1J.dpbs

  54. “But there is no enemy organization in the climate debates, no OpFor.”

    According to the Blue Team, the enemy is of our own making, global warming. An effective Red Team would analyse the benefits of warming, and analyse the risks of abrupt natural cooling events that the Blue Team overlook. The latter could easily be the real threat to humanity through the next 250 years.

    “How can A.A. methods be used in the climate wars? First, what is the key question to answer?”

    Are the major ocean modes of ENSO and the AMO strongly solar driven?

  55. Intellectually the great challenge is to realize that where we are presented with certainty, there is actually great uncertainty. Eventually one comes to the conclusion that the models, borrowed from the world of fluid dynamics where they have been extremely successful, are not fit for purpose when it comes to understanding the climate of the world. This obviously challenges the careers of many people, who claim to be the specialists who have arrived at general knowledge of a big complex subject. It probably pleases many people in the public to think that now we have computers, we can do wonderful things like model the climate of the world. As for downstream effects like polar bears, it is going to be tough to grapple with boomer environmentalism, sometimes based on good evidence, sometimes not. There’s a lot to be said for sticking with Holocene proxies. What are the major natural factors influencing global temperature? What is the sequence of events in big changes like glaciation and de-glaciation? Where are we today in terms of these big natural factors? Who knows, there might be some room in there for man-made CO2 to explain something.

  56. This debate has gone on for more than 20 years, will another 20 settle this? We should hope so!
    Don’t screw with temperature records past, present and future. Stop with the fake news and don’t hide the real news. Not sure who to trust when money is involved.

  57. I see the two comment threads as an insight into the locker room talk of two opposing teams, speculating about a possible upcoming match. On the one side is the World Champion, internationally favored, heavily sponsored and funded Consensus Team. Their talk, naturally is about all their winning (having never played away from home), how they have all the superstars and the other side are just hacks.

    On the other side is the Outcast Team with a small but vocal fanbase, no acknowledged funding or sponsorship, and full of internal discord and disorganization. They are united mainly in their opposition to the consensus. Yet, in a surprising recent twist, they have a chance to form the home side. So they talk of all the sneaky tricks and cheating done by the other side, and the unseemly behavior of consensus leaders.

    Both sides speak of attacking the credibility of the other team, and this is the discouraging part. To me, the exercise is intended to take a widely supported plan of action, poke holes to see if it holds water, and severely kick the tires to see if it goes anywhere without breaking down.

    The simplest summary of the consensus is:
    Humans are making the planet warmer.
    The warming is dangerous.
    Government can stop it.

    The Red team is to go on offense, attacking and attempting to score against the consensus position. The Blue team is to go on defence, presenting data, facts and information to resist the assertions from the other side. Both sides should play the ball, not the man. The purpose is to reach a more complete and solid understanding of what is known and unknown about the functioning of our complex climate system. And from there what can be expected in the future.I see the two comment threads as an insight into the locker room talk of two opposing teams, speculating about a possible upcoming match. On the one side is the World Champion, internationally favored, heavily sponsored and funded Consensus Team. Their talk, naturally is about all their winning (having never played away from home), how they have all the superstars and the other side are just hacks.

    On the other side is the Outcast Team with a small but vocal fanbase, no acknowledged funding or sponsorship, and full of internal discord and disorganization. They are united mainly in their opposition to the consensus. Yet, in a surprising recent twist, they have a chance to form the home side. So they talk of all the sneaky tricks and cheating done by the other side, and the unseemly behavior of consensus leaders.

    Both sides speak of attacking the credibility of the other team, and this is the discouraging part. To me, the exercise is intended to take a widely supported plan of action, poke holes to see if it holds water, and severely kick the tires to see if it goes anywhere without breaking down.

    The simplest summary of the consensus is:
    Humans are making the planet warmer.
    The warming is dangerous.
    Government can stop it.

    The Red team is to go on offense, attacking and attempting to score against the consensus position. The Blue team is to go on defence, presenting data, facts and information to resist the assertions from the other side. Both sides should play the ball, not the man. The purpose is to reach a more complete and solid understanding of what is known and unknown about the functioning of our complex climate system. And from there what can be expected in the future.

  58. I did not read all 236 post before mine so apologies if this has already been stated….. but ….. IMO, a red team exercise for climate would be fruitless because the two would be arguing different points. CAGW makes an emotional argument. It’s not fair, unequality, we use to much of the earths resources, we are destroying the planet. The red team would be arguing with logic and data that the premise of the CAGW emotionalism is flawed. Unfortunately, no amount of logic or rational discussion can change an emotional perspective, because emotion is purely subjective.

    I would see this playing out just like the abortion debate, with one side arguing the right of the fetus to live and the other arguing the right of women to choose about their bodies. They speak right past each other. So it will be with a red team approach to climate science.

  59. Larry needs to read more about science.
    “skeptics have their beliefs”
    Good grief!
    Skeptics ask questions until the theory is discarded or becomes a law.

  60. don’t need no steenkin teams.
    unleash weaponized autism.
    it friggin works.
    reeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  61. ‘But there is no enemy organization in the climate debates’

    The ‘enemy’ is the climate establishment. And I’d particularly focus on enabling research that they currently block as a risk to the ‘climate consensus’.

    I’ll give you an example, although there are many more.

    The effect of aerosol and particulate pollution (including cloud seeding effects) on temperature. This should be an easy subject to study as aerosol and particulate levels vary greatly over time and distance. Yet, very few studies have been done, and those that have been published, ALL just refer to diurnal temperature range. Not a single published study states the effect of aerosols and particulates (and cloud related effects) on actual recorded temperatures.

    This is scandalous, as there is good evidence that much of the claimed warming is due to earlier minimum temperatures resulting from reduced aerosol seeded low-level clouds over urban and nearby areas.

    • Philip Bradley:

      You are correct that aerosol emissions can have a profound effect on average global temperatures.

      In particular, I have found that the control knob for Earth’s climate is actually the amount of Sulfur Dioxide aerosol emissions in the troposphere, and not the accumulation of “greenhouse gasses”

      This information is as yet unpublished, since it is flatly rejected by Journal editors acting as gate-keepers for the status quo. .

      It is, however, available in my on-line post “Climate Change Deciphered”, which has never been rebutted.

  62. The Red Team approach was conceived as a way of furthering the Blue Team’s agenda. But policy makers faced with technical issues over which expert interpretations and judgments differ would benefit most from an independent unbiased assessment of the relative merits of what the Blue and Red Teams assert.
    An approach to providing such an independent assessment was proposed half a century ago by Arthur Kantrowitz when experts were disagreeing publicly over the potential safety of nuclear power — “Proposal for an Institution for Scientific Judgment”, Science, 156 (1967) 763-4.
    This was much discussed for a time under the rubric of a possible “Science Court”. A few informal trials were made, a symposium was held in the early 1990s, but no such Court was actually established. More recently, some legal scholars have revisited the concept as a way of assisting the legal system as it needs increasingly to deal with cases where intricate technical issues play a central role and are presented in opposing directions by the expert witnesses called by plaintiff and defendant.
    A Science Court would have subpoena powers and the authority to force proponents of the range of interpretations to present their cases and to respond to cross-examination. The purpose of proceedings would not be to assist a Blue or a Red Team to a better winning strategy but that independent judges or assessors would be able to offer the best possible advice to policy makers; that would typically be a statement of the nature and degree of technical uncertainties and the likelihood of benefit or harm from possible actions.
    A just-published discussion of the Science Court concept forms chapter 12 in Science Is Not What You Think (McFarland 2017) http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-1-4766-6910-6

  63. What it really needs is for the scientists to be tried for overselling with predictions like the hundred months to climate doomsday as the insurance industry here was for personal insurance.
    We invested billions based on needing to solve the emissions problems in a short period, with neither wind nor solar a viable replacement for fossil fuels, when clearly there was no problem with climate change or at best no deadline.

    • Focus on the falsehoods and the fr@ud:
      ECS wildly exaggerated by false positive feedbacks;
      Fabricated aerosol data to force-hindcast the cooling of ~1940-1975;
      Intimidation by warmists of journals, institutions and academics – see the Climategate emails;
      Adjustments to historic and current temperature data;
      Follow the money – this is in dollar terms the most costly sc@m in history – trillions of dollars have been misappropriated and millions of lives have been wasted.

      • Feel free to add to this list of fr@uds:
        The MBH98 etc hokey stick, Hide the Decline, Mike’s Nature trick, etc.;
        The doctored SPM reports of the IPCC;
        Eliminating the MWP and LIA from the climate record;
        The BEST temperature studies;
        Grid-connected wind and solar power;
        Forcing intermittent non-dispatchable “green power” into the grid ahead of much cheaper dispatchable power;
        Destabilization of power grids by “green energy” schemes;
        Corn ethanol and other subsidized food-for-fuels;
        Carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc.;
        Brainwashing of children and adults and the spreading of false fears;
        Vilification of fossil fuels, which provide 86% of global primary energy;
        Spreading fear of warmer weather when cool temperatures are by far the greatest killer of mankind;
        Increasing energy costs driving up excess winter deaths;
        “Heat or Eat”;
        … and the list goes on …

Comments are closed.