by John Siciliano | Jul 24, 2017, 12:02 AM
The Trump administration is in the beginning stages of forming an adversarial “red team” to play devil’s advocate in a plan to debate the facts behind global warming and take on what skeptics call climate alarmism.
The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are recruiting scientists by enlisting the help of the Heartland Institute, considered to be the lead think tank for challenging the majority of scientists on climate change.The institute has its own red team, which is the antithesis to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which it calls, unabashedly, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team, and we’ve been happy to oblige,” Jim Lakely, the group’s communications director, told the Washington Examiner.
“This effort is long overdue,” he said. “The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge. That is a violation of the scientific method and the public’s trust.”
The Heartland Institute has been a long proponent of a red team “to critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science for many years,” Lakely said. “In fact, Heartland has worked closely with a red team that has been examining the science for several years: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC.”
What the Trump administration may pull together in creating its red team might look a little like what Heartland has created.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals … provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science,” a senior administration official told the news service Climatewire late last month.
“We are, in fact, very excited about this initiative. Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing,” the official said.
The Heartland team continues to publish reports challenging IPCC and other climate scientists, which it began eight years ago. The group has produced four volumes of “Climate Change Reconsidered,” with a fifth coming out later this year, Lakely said.
“Hundreds of scientists have reviewed and helped produce those volumes, which have been published by the Heartland Institute,” Lakely said. The reports total more than 3,000 pages.
The irony behind the Trump administration taking up the approach is that it was suggested by a former Obama administration official, Steve Koonin, who suggested a red team-blue team approach to clear out the politics and address the science. Koonin teaches at New York University.
Read the rest of the story here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The All-Star Red Team:
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
John Christy
William Happer
Freeman Dyson
Judith looks a lot taller in this picture…
Add Pielke Jr. to that list, since he has published research that fully discredits the “extreme weather” meme.
I would also recommend at least one statistician (perhaps WM Briggs) and one biologist (not sure exactly who but Susan Crockford might be a start, but she seems a little specialized in polar bears). Also would like to see someone working on alternative, more physics based, approaches such as Axel Kleidon or Valerio Lucarini. Steve Koonin is also a good candidate. If only Feynman were still alive.
Susan Crockford does not study polar bears… she just writes about them.
The predominant reaction of the green blob will parallel that of the Democratic Party in the US to the voter fraud commission–the issue is so well settled confirming our position that any attempt to seek information or argue the issue is purely partisan posturing, so we will not cooperate in this exercise.
Given the past behavior of people like Michael Mann in not producing data in Freedom of Information Act cases or civil suit discovery, expecting the greens to ever act in good faith is naive.
+ 1
Although the Government could put pressure to make full disclosure by stating that all government funding will be cut off until full disclosure is made.
Scientific debate on climate change? You may as well debate the existence of god with a religious fundamentalist compared to telling a regressive that the earth is actually doing ok despite the activities of the human aliens, unfortunately religious belief and the guilt of our own existence is hardwired into the human DNA and very hard to break even with reason, the only hope of separating people from this cult is for all of the people who see this folly for what it is to take the social risk and speak up. Hopefully a public debate will at least give people the courage to do this.
Tasks for the Red Team:
Focus on warmist falsehoods and fr@ud:
ECS wildly exaggerated by false positive feedbacks and resulting model over-predictions of warming;
Fabricated aerosol data to force-hindcast the cooling of ~1940-1975;
False claims of wilder weather that have not materialized
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 warmist 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;
Energy poverty, “Heat or Eat”.
… and the list goes on …
To MacRay
That’s too scientific.
I propose the Red Teal come to a debate with 100 large posters,
each with a printed prediction about the future climate made 10 to 40 years ago,
that we know now was a wrong prediction.
Instead of debating, a Red Team member would hold up a sign with a prediction
printed large, and the name of the predictor.
The Red Team member would read the prediction out loud,
wait a few seconds,
say “That didn’t happen”,
wait a few more seconds,
then burst out laughing,
just like Ed McMahon might do,
Johnny Carson’s former “laugh guy”.
Ridicule and character attacks work —
especially with so many laughable wrong climate predictions
made in the past — that clearly show humans
can’t predict the future climate.
The falsehoods and resultant effects of “An Inconvenient Truth”!
None of these are frauds…
* 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;
Germany has a very reliable grid and 35% renewable electricity.
Increasing energy costs are not driving up excess winter deaths – at least not costs from renewables.
Excess winter deaths are lower in Germany than the UK, despite colder temps in Germany and more renewable energy used there.
German pensioners are wealthier and the houses are not so old nor riddled with damp problems as is the case in the UK.
Then you agree, renewable energy is not a factor…
No I most certainly do not agree.
The state full pension in the UK is now (or soon will under phasing) be about €170 per week. Many people do not qualify for the full state pension. Whilst I am not of pensionable age, I will only qualify for about 60 to 70% of that sum when I am of pensionable age. Last year it was only about £105 per week (ie., about €117 per week)
About 4 years ago the chairman or financial director of Scottish & Southern Energy which is one of the largest suppliers of energy in the UK explained that over 50% of the electrify bill is due to the green drive towards renewables. He was interviewed by BBC HardTalk so this interview may be available on BBC iplayer but in view of its age, I rather doubt it.
He explained that 25% of the bill covers infrastructure costs which is the connection of windfarms and STOR to the grid, 25% covers the “green deal” which is subsidies given to poorer people to help with insulation, boiler replacement and to help those in fuel poverty due to the high price of energy, and of the 50% that goes to supply costs this is far higher than it needs to be due to the high strike price paid for wind and solar and compensation paid to wind farms when the grid can’t take wind energy or when the wind farm is not producing energy, and carbon tax paid on coal and gas.
The upshot of this is that but for the drive towards renewables, the electricity bill would only be about 40% of what it currently is. It is all these incidentals towards the push towards renewables that explains why energy costs in the UK (and for that matter the rest of Europe) are so far higher than those in the US.
Now if you are relying on the state pension, as many in the UK do, when you have an income of just €170 per week it greatly matters whether your energy bill is about €1,225 or whether it is about €500. The difference may be only about €725 but when your sole income is only €170 this difference is immense. It is about 4 weeks worth of pension.
I have seen the numerous comments made by you in which you exhibit very little empathy for the plight of others. You do not live in their shoes and it appears that you have difficulty in understanding the difficulties they face, many of these difficulties are caused by the pursuit of so called green policies and the push for renewable energy.
Could you afford to with go 4 weeks of your net salary (after deduction of tax), and if so, why do you not give that sum to charity so that you can experience the hardships that others have to endure because of the push towards green initiatives and renewables?
PS. Of course, there is nothing green about renewables, and the really stupid thing is that they do not even significantly reduce CO2. .
The problem is the low pensions British people get.
Not renewables.
Much of my electricity bill increases have been due to gas prices.
~I dispute your assessment of how the charges are incurred.
Thank you Richard.
The Excess Winter Mortality Rate in Britain is much higher than in Canada. Canada has half the population of the UK and our Excess Winter mortality typically ranges from 5000 to 10,000 per year, whereas in Britain Excess Winter Mortality ranges up to 50,000 per year.
Canada and Britain have similar health care systems. Britain has much higher energy costs and also has older housing with poorer insulation, both of which contribute significantly to its higher winter mortality.
Excess Winter Mortality especially targets the elderly and the poor – this is one of the most significant real achievements of the global warming gang, and raises “granny bashing” to a whole new level.
The warmists’ greatest achievements, however, were the misappropriation of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources based on the global warming scam, and the squandering of millions of lives due to needless energy poverty.
Regards, Allan
Reference:
Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
The German grid is not that reliable.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/comment-page-1/#comment-2310685
[excerpts]
There was a near-grid crash in Germany due to wind power on Christmas Eve, 2004, as cited in my post below from circa 2005.
Naturally, our imbecilic politicians cannot grasp this simple concept: “The wind does not blow all the time.”
Some of them believe that grid-scale storage is a current solution – it is not.
Imagine if the grid actually crashed at Christmas in Germany, instead of a near-miss. It would have been a disaster, costing billions due to frozen pipes, etc., and much human suffering.
Imagine if that happened in a colder country, like Canada, or the northern USA.
Source: Wind Report 2005, by E.On Netz, then the largest wind power generator in the world.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
Addendum
**************************
My post from circa 2005 follows:
Here is a quotation from Wind Report 2005 by E.On Netz for the German wind power grid. As you can readily surmise, wind power is a huge problem for grid operators.
Within just two days, the entire generating capacity of German wind power disappeared, necessitating the startup of the equivalent of TWELVE 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants.
During the steepest drop on December 24, 2004, they lost the equivalent of one 500MW power plant every 30 minutes!
The truth is that wind power requires 100% backup from conventional power sources, a duplication of resources that makes wind power entirely uneconomic.
The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6, which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26 December 2004.
“Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”
2005 was 12 years ago and German wind power (and fossil fuel power) has changed greatly since then.
Germany has once has a ‘trip’ like in SA – in 2008.
They fixed that problem and it hasn’t happened since.
I would point out that since then Germany has successfully handled a massive ramp down and ramp up of renewable power – solar power, during the eclipse of 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-eclipse-germany-idUSKBN0MG0S620150321
Its wind power prediction systems give data 24 hours in advance, by the way.
Griff
Your comments on the German grid are misleading and incorrect – the Substitution Capacity in Germany is now about 5% – that means to permanently retire 1 unit of conventional (reliable, dispatchable) power generation the Germans have to install 20 units of wind power.
Ja, 20 Einheiten! Was zum Teufel?
I don’t think the “Red Team” should attempt to counter the “science” at all. The question is not about science and never has been. The activists want to shut down civilization, not realizing what would happen to them if they succeeded.
If I was on the Red Team I would simply take a fast survey of the actual science in the IPCC report Not the Summary for Policy Makers that is cobbled together behind closed door by the politicians Take out the activist garbage, written by non-scientists. They will be left with model studies and a tiny bit of actual science.
Get together with Blue Team at that point and get them to agree that this is the science. Maybe Blue Team will want to include later studies that were not in the last IPCC report. Let them. Let them even include Karl et al and all the pause-busting garbage science. If it is peer-reviewed let them accept it, No point in arguing something on the merits. Let them have their best shot.
The one thing they should not concede is the statement “Since the start of the Industrial Revolution”. The studies that try to attribute modern warming to land use changes or coal burning in 18th century Britain. The IPCC clearly states that the modern warming trend accelerated after 1950 because of anthropogenic CO2. The CO2 levels before 1950 cannot be said to have caused significant warming. This is just the “science” of the IPCC reports, no more, no less.
Get all this agreed to as a starting basis for the exercise. Then show how the models have utterly and completely failed. Even with the Karlization and the adjustments and the model based satellite re-analysis the models run hot. This effectively counters 90% or the IPCC report and nearly 100% of later studies.
Then, when they are on the ropes and squealing, turn around and accept the models. At this point the arguments are all there for anyone with eyes to see, but the eyes blinded by prejudice will still be darkened with hatred. So let them continue in their blind faith while the real argument comes forth.
Now talk about mitigation. This is the real issue. You can say what you want about the science, but the real question is “what do we do about it?” It is easy to show using only the statements in the IPCC reports that the Paris Accords will not make the slightest dent in the predicted future disaster scenarios of the IPCC. The Paris Accords are a cash grab pure and simple. Without the US to support it, there is no point at all to the Paris Accords. I don’t see France and Germany stepping up to fund the Green Climate Fund. They haven’t got the bucks (neither does the US in reality, with its massive national debt).
Make it clear to all who can still listen that the UNFCCC and the IPCC were created to redistribute wealth, that the only possible reason to pursue them is to destroy western civilization, that the UN created these institutions with only political aims. If this were not true, they would embrace nuclear and hydro-electric projects.
These simple statements will explode heads in the media and will cause Al Gore to redouble his propaganda blitz. There is no hope of convincing the hard left on this issue. It is too ingrained into their DNA. In the 1800s it was Marx, in the 1900s the Soviets, today it is the Greens. Wealth redistribution is the goal and they will not quit. They don’t even know what they are fighting for, but they will fight to the end. Fortunately the hard left true believers are a small minority.
The true majority favor the real mitigation solution. Do Nothing. As fossil fuels get harder to extract, the market will swing to alternatives and the fossil fuel revolution will be replaced by a new one that we can’t even imagine today.
Meanwhile we can pay attention to true environmental problems that the so-called “greens” are ignoring. We can make sure that new coal plants in the developing world have the scrubbers we use to prevent the environmental disasters like today’s Beijing. We can improve land use, water use, plan for droughts and floods and sea level rise or fall instead of squeezing our eyes closed and pretending we can prevent these entirely natural issues by driving electric cars.
When you review the science then it’s clear that the skeptics should actually be the blue team, and the climate cultists should be the red team. Propaganda won’t do so well in this style of test.
I disagree with your premise but some rational economic assessment would probably be in order once the science portion is completed. To be published later as a conclusion. It starts to look like an improved IPCC approach. Filter out the preconceptions and international politics.
Blue Team + Red Team = waste of green money
Best decision in favor of real science:
= Fire the Blue Team
Stop compiling average global temperature,
except for satellites
Stop making wild guess predictions of the future climate.
Sell the ‘super computers’, or scrap them
Compromise “lukewarmer” decision in favor of science
= Fire half the Blue Team,
replace them with a PERMANENT Red Team
Blue Team junk science versus Red Team real science?
Junk science will usually “win”.
Of course having a debate / opposition research / report
is some risk for the Blue Team,
but the Blue Team would have a lot of “advantages”:
Because:
Junk science can predict the future.
Junk science has all the answers
Junk science never says we don’t know
Junk science knows how to present their “case” to the media”
Junk science has three decades of government / public school propaganda behind them
Junk science knows how to cleverly ridicule and character attack (and harshly, if required)
The outcome of a Red Team – Blue Team “competition” is obvious:
Blue Team: Man made CO2-caused runaway warming will end life on Earth
Red Team: CO2 warming is not a big problem
Blue Team: No matter who is right, it’s still smart to reduce CO2 pollution,
Would you risk the lives of your children and grandchildren
by assuming the Red Team is right?
Red Team: What does this have to do with children and grandchildren?
Blue Team: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s obvious the Red Team
could not care less about your children and grandchildren !
Climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
The imposition of government “science” is all, repeat all, about money. Real science will always choose the most elegant solution and I suggest that is within the definition of a promotion from the old and dreadful Vancouver Stock Exchange.
Perhaps the Red Team could use it.
“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”
The public is being loaded with trillions of dollars of vision.
Bob Hoye
Red team information already exists, and has existed for quite some time, and it has been known by a relatively few. The difference now is sheer exposure. Now it has an agent to promote it at the national level.
In effect, the red team might now have more posters to compete with the blue team’s posters.
No, it’s not a debate – it’s a political race, with each side allowed to campaign in full public view, striving to get votes. Will a new paradigm get elected from this political race?
Not only that, but the blue team will be forced to defend its shaky dismissals of red team criticisms, which have convinced many journalists and opinion leaders. That’s what’s been lacking: enough “rounds” in the debate to back the blue team into a corner..
A Red Team is all well and good for purposes of Public Education… but it’s no substitute for large-scale House Cleaning … better to act soon … while Drump is still around
As far as I know, a fanatical cult has never taken part of a blue team/red team exercise. The climate cult will be exposed as just that.
My thought, too. With a Red Team coming from persons suggested by Heartland, the blue team will just scream “BIASED” and go home. I don’t see any “team exercise” occurring, ever.
Yes, that’s what will happen.
Any involvement from any fossil fuel/Republican backing institute, think tank or individual will automatically invalidate it from the climate science perspective…
Just like socialist/labour party and alarmist NGO’s involvement destroy the credibility of the IPCC consensus?
Sheri – Our Buddy Mr. Griff, has already started that process above in a previous response:
“Griff July 25, 2017 at 2:50 am ”
At least he may be correct once in his life?
Regards,
MCR
I’m interested in how this will be reported to the public. Ongoing? Through WH press releases? Online home site? Press organizations at the meetings assuming they have them instead of paper submittals only ? Conclusions?
I hope it’ll be handled by back-and-forth critiques online, like the Climate Dialogue site. Maybe there should not be a continual back-and-forth, but rather punctuated salvos every week or so. The topic is too vast and technical to be handled in an oral debate, although debates of that sort covering the high points should be regularly shown on public radio and TV.
Remember this,
https://youtu.be/AK0oGnqtVXo
The brilliance of blue red is that the status quo refuses to debate. With the stakes sky high, the blues in their trepidation are forced to participate or lose the whole trillions by default. I would like to see the exercise conducted with the utmost fairness, although, notwithstanding such fairness, there will be accusations of unfairness from the blues.
The issues to be ‘discussed’ should number only the key half dozen that govern the blue position. Let them choose what they believe are the key issues. I can see by many sceptic comments that skeptics on the loose would queer up the process with stuff that would hang a ‘jury’. We won’t benefit from saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, for example or that it cools (even though greening is an endothermic process).
They will include the Ir absorption of CO2, and many skeptics futilely get into minutae on this. Just as important, skeptics commonly don’t raise the issue that yes, in the lab this does happen, but in nature, other things counteract the warming effect whether by CO2 or any other cause (a la W. Eschenbach or R. Lintzen). The important thing is to blunt the alarm that is ‘supported’ with no one showing their work or hard quantitative numbers and their basis.
The precautionary principle will be resorted to. We should also resort to Bertrand Russell’s orbiting tea pot. A few choice climategate emails might be useful to show that ‘science’ needed a lot of Stephen Schneider’s encouragement of falsehoods to accomplish ‘what is right’.
We will not arrive at the correct science. If we succeed at showing the worst case to be some warming at loggerheads with significant natural variations and the obvious benefits of a bit of warming and CO2 I.
An important benefit of a public debate would be to squash the MSM’s Big Lie that 97% of All Scientists support the fact of “climate change”, whatever that dread threat might be.
I see a fatal flaw in this approach, as evidenced by many posts on this topic. There are many references to the two “sides”, confirming that the posters consider the teams to be real adversaries.
In my very limited understanding of the technique, it is most effective when the teams are NOT adversaries but rather united toward the same goal.
By way of example, generals may have established a military operation, and then go back to the war college for some bright minds, and say “pick this plan apart.” When the RED team uncovers some flaws the general say “thank you” and go about fixing the plan. They all celebrate together when the action is successful. The same would go for rocket scientists designing a spacecraft.
Does anyone expect Michael Mann or Trenberth to thank the Red Team for exposing flaws? Who reconciles the two views?
I also agree that by naming the Heartland as a major resource for the RED team, they have poisoned the waters. The first things we will see is a reference to the Ted Kaczynski billboard, and the Koch funding (albeit only $25,000). Fred Singer will be demonized regarding 2nd hand tobacco smoke and Dr Christie (gasp) believes in GOD!
The “Blue Team ” will be no shows as they have repeatedly demonstrated over the years . Cowards not scientists . Science is about debate and the study of climate is in it’s infancy so why would anyone be afraid to talk about it ?
To stop the political nonsense and protect the professional integrity of all participants let them go off and leave the lobbyist’s , media and corporate welfare bums out of it .
Way too much polarization done mainly by jerks who couldn’t pass Grade 10 science .
We already submitted our work.
And all of it is proven to be wrong.
This why your team has to resort to ship bucket data to salvage a failed hypothesis.
Where is the proof it is all wrong? Please provide a reference.
By focusing on specific, outstanding controversial issues, just how unsettled “climate science” is will be made plain to anyone willing to look.
1) Has Earth warmed since AD 1700? If so, by how much? Has it warmed since 1940? If so, by how much?
2) How much of whatever warming has actually occurred can be attributed to human activity, if any?
3) How much warming would occur as a result of increasing CO2 from 280 ppm in c. 1850 to 560 ppm around the end of this century?
4) Are warming, if any, and more CO2, good or bad, beneficial or dangerous?
5) If dangerous, what should be done about it or them?
I’m extremely late with this idea comment, but I’ll make up for it in future posts. 90-95% of the red team blue team exercise was performed 3 years ago.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
All that is needed is a serious evaluation of this document by a truly neutral panel. Job done.
True. But any neutral panel will be vilified and demonized by the vicious Team.
How about the past nine presidents of the AAAS, which would leave Holdren out. And the ninth is married to one of the more recent past presidents, so make it the current and past seven. They’re mostly life scientists, so might not have as much invested in the CACA sc@m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science
They’d be under pressure from colleagues who do have everything invested in it, however.
Too bad Feynman is dead. He did a good job on the Challenger panel. But his sister is still alive, and a climate skeptic.
Ya the review of physics by biologists will be a good idea.
you clowns
Only in your dreams is CACA about “physics”. You don’t know the first thing about either climatology or physics.
Biochemists are eminently qualified to pass judgement on the joke, junk “science” of CACA, many of the practitioners of which aren’t scientists at all, but math and computer programming grads.
SM,
However if you want to limit the teams to physicists, you lose. Who among the leading CACA spewers is actually a physicist?
I propose for the pro-science team theses esteemed physicists: Lindzen, Dyson, Happer and Giaever.
Whom do you propose for your side? All you have are the clowns Mann and Schmidt, neither a physicist. Hansen has a PhD in Physics, but his thesis is a joke.
You are so easy to make fun of. It’s like shooting dead fish in a small barrel.
SM,
Do you suppose that you’re more qualified, as an English major, to evaluate science than presidents of the AAAS?
So-called “climate science” is so bogus that even an undergrad in biology can see its fatal flaws, let alone the world’s most distinguished biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, geneticists and other life science specialists.
Good point, ctm.
Now that Heartland is suggesting a Red team..
folks will know which skeptics are considered to be tops in the feild.
and which are just hacks.
It will be fun to see which skeptics refuse to join, and who is left out.
Also, this will set in stone in the absolute best arguments the skeptics can muster.
Of course none of you will accept the results of the red team. Your religion is at stake
From reading all the comments here it is clear you guys
A) dont have a clue what red teaming is.,
b) will never accept Any of the results of red team.
I would be happy to accept the CO2 theory, unfortunately it has been proven wrong by Mother Nature for thirty plus years running, That’s why the predictions\projections now stretch out to 2100.
I have accepted the results as being wrong and the theory falsified. How could any reasonable objective person not?
Sad that a noble profession like Science, which has enriched so many of our lives, has been corrupted by politics.
Sorry Reg, you are wrong.
Nothing in the theory precludes periods of diminished warming.
In its simplest version the theory maintains the following.
T = F(forcings)
The temperature of the earth is a function of MULTIPLE forcings: c02, methane, solar, aerosol , land change, volcanos, and YES natural internal forcing. Further. If c02 goes up and other forcings counteract
that, you will see slowing in warming, even cooling. BUT, if you held all things equal and just increased c02,
then the temperature would go up. To really test that theory you have to hold all other things equal. Given
that we live in the beaker and the beaker is huge its not possible to do that controlled experiment.
So no cookies will be issued to you. Further, the increase in temperature does not happen uniformly or
monotonically. Some of the excess heat will go into the ocean. Some of the exces heat will go into
melting ice. That’s why we dont look at short term surface measures only.
Now there is one way to do “controlled” “experiments” thats with a simulator. We do the same thing
with things like war simulation or engineering simulation. you put your best physical understanding into code
( And yes sometimes the theory cant be executed by code ) and you run the simulation.
This gives you an idea of what to expect. Nobody goes out and conducts a war to test war simulations.
They are largely unverified and unverifiable. but we use them to plan for the future. It’s the best tool
you have when the phenomena is too large to experiment with OR too dangerous to run experiments.
Even with an enginering simulation.. take aircraft survivability in war. An F18 for example is designed
to have 98% survivability to cannon fire from a 50 caliber bullet. How was that figured out?
Simple. Someone ran covart http://ajem.com/general/faq/ajem_faq.html
To back that up you “might” be able to run a few live fire tests. Shooting up 35Million aircraft in the desert is fun.
But you dont get many data points. enough for a sanity check
What about missiles hitting aircraft? That would be SHAZAM . Simulating how and if a missile can kill and aircraft is more of an art than a science. YET the defense of our country depends on this.
How good is this modelling? hmm, its a good guide, but not exact
https://www.nap.edu/read/4971/chapter/7#91
Thank you to those who have supported Heartland through thick and thin. Your dedication gives us strength
I don’t understand why this is couched in terms of debate or even engage the blue team. The most direct approach is to take the IPCC report and tear it to shreds. Just assume it is the blue team bible; it is the basis of the politics.
A good start is whether the field follows the scientific method when the IPCC charter is in effect endorsing the precautionary principle and basically limits its investigation to man made effects. Question whether it has any hypothesis to test. If so what is it and so on with failed predictions including Hansen.
hansens published work holds up pretty good as a prediction.
According to which adjusted data set? Yours? My predictions are actually perfect if I can make my own adjustments.
The adjustments to data correlate with CO2 increases with a 0.98 R2 according to Tony Heller. I’ll take his word for it over any official massaging. When you can explain specific physicality which required adjustments to records like Alice Springs, Rutherglen etc then I am all ears; otherwise please spare me.
“hansens published work holds up pretty good as a prediction.”
Against all the peer reviewed published data. That is how science works. If you want the red team to use blog posts instead then good luck.
I have proposed an alternative explanation for the increase in global average temperature observed over the last century and a half. It is a natural fluctuation arising from the integration of a large number of turbulent energetic processes. It is a centrally biased random walk. Proxy temperature data from ice cores show fluctuations with a statistically similar character. This simple stochastic model fully accounts for the observations and by Ockham’s Razor there is no need to look for further explanations. The same is true of global mean sea level. “Global Warming” is an hysterical over-reaction to the discovery that globally averaged quantities can vary randomly over time. There is nothing wrong with the data, the problem lies in the way it has been analysed by researchers who have little understanding of modern statistical methods. See https://goo.gl/gWuxSS and for a more popular account http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/john-reid-2017-1.php