Michael Bastasch
2:01 PM 07/25/2017
President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser compared the Trump administration’s use of “red teams” to debate climate science to a “kangaroo court” meant to “create a sense of continuing uncertainty about the science of climate change.”
“But I suspect that most of the advocates of the scheme are disingenuous, aiming to get hand-picked non-experts from federal agencies to dispute the key findings of mainstream climate science and then assert that the verdict of this kangaroo court has equal standing with the findings of the most competent bodies in the national and international scientific communities,” former President Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed published Monday.
“The purpose of that, of course, would be to create a sense of continuing uncertainty about the science of climate change, as an underpinning of the Trump administration’s case for not addressing it. Sad,” Holdren wrote in his op-ed, railing against the “perversity of the climate science kangaroo court.”
The idea of using red teams gained traction with Trump administration officials this year after former Obama administration official Steve Koonin suggested the arrangement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April.
Koonin, a physicist and former top Department of Energy official, argued red teams could strengthen climate science by exposing its faults and uncertainties. The military and intelligence communities often pit red teams against blue teams to expose weaknesses in policies and strategies being pursued. It could work in a similar way for climate science, with a red team of researchers given the goal of finding pitfalls in blue team’s scientific argument.
“A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits,” Koonin wrote in the WSJ. “It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs.”
Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. One group of prominent researchers even argued red team exercises amount to “dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions” that undercut mainstream science.
Holdren argued the scientific peer-review process already acts as a check on bad science, further arguing a red team exercise is a ‘right-wing’ plot against climate science.
“Climate science has been repeatedly ‘red-teamed,’ both by groups of avowed contrarians sponsored by right-wing groups and by the most qualified parts of the world’s scientific community,” Holdren wrote in his op-ed.
“The right wing’s ‘red team’ efforts have consistently been characterized by brazen cherry-picking, misrepresentation of the findings of others, recycling of long-discredited hypotheses, and invention of new ones destined to be discredited,” Holdren wrote. “Almost none of this material has survived peer review to be published in the respectable professional literature.”
Despite this, Trump administration officials have begun looking for scientists to participate in a red-blue team exercise to test scientific claims about man-made global warming. Media reports suggest the Trump team is considering asking Koonin to lead the exercise.
The administration also sought recommendations for who should participate in the red team exercise from the Heartland Institute, which is known for its skepticism of man-made warming.
“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,” Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely told reporters Monday.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tags: Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Energy, John Holdren
Considering Holden once recommended reducing population by sterilizing everyone via their drinking water, I would say he has precisely zero credibility.
“Holdren”, not “Holden.” F%#l* autocorrect.
CO2isnotevil compares the solar insolation forcing to the radiative forcing of CO2 caused by the absorption. I do not think that the calculations are correct. We can carry out a very simple calculations on the different basis. The average solar insulation is about 239 W/m2. It causes the present GH effect of 34 C. It means that 1 W/m2 of solar insulation increase corresponds to 34/239 = 0.14 C increase in the GH effect. IPCC says that the CO2 concentration change from 280 to 560 ppm increases the radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere by 3.7 W/m2 (it is the same thing, if solar radiation would have increased the same amount). If you multiply 3.7 by 0.14, the result is 0.53 Celsius degrees. IPCC says that the result is 1.75 degrees in the short run and finally 3.5 degrees in the long run. Long run (equilibriun climate sensitivity) is pure fiction. So, IPCC thinks that CO2 is evil, because its radiative forcing is much more powerful than the radiation of the Sun.
Using more sophisticated methods, my result is 0.6 degrees. It passes the simple test using the rule of thumb, which everyone can comprehend..
But your calculation assumes a linear response or relationship between the 239 W/m^2 and +34C of the GHE.
Yes it does. In the same way IPCC assumes that the radiative forcing (RF) has a liner response on the surface temperature change: dT = CSP * RF, where CSP is the climate sensitivity parameter. This is good enough for small changes around the present operating point of the GH effect. You are right that this assumption may not be totally linear for the whole range of the GH effect. Anyway the difference is very small with the spectral analysis method (the most accurate method) and this very simple method: 0.58 C versus 0.53 C. I have rounded 0.58 C to 0.6 C.
Do not mix this RF formula to that of RF formula used to calculate the RF of CO2 concentration, which is logarithmic.
Anyone who has been around WUWT and a few of the other climate blogs will soon come to realise that it is not correct to state (as some have previously) that everyone on this (WUWT) side also believes in AGW but thinks the ECS is low. There are a considerable number who think there is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas at all, e.g. theories about gravity, density, etc.
This needs to be cleared up properly. I propose as well as the Red/Blue team exercise we also spend some money on conducting actual real experiments. Nobody should be able to object to that. The experiments can be conducted by anyone who want to, in fact it is beneficial if all THREE sides in this ALL DO THE SAME EXPERIMENTS.
Laboratory experiments on CO2, etc and then larger experiments in the atmosphere should help us get a quantitative result for the effect of CO” and other so called greenhouse gases. We need REAL NUMBERS to work with, not theoretical assumptions.
” = 2 (No excuse, my fingers are not fat today,arthritis under control)
Your argument makes sense, but once again it assumes that CO2 is the only driver to consider in the debate. Imo, it is of great importance to show that it is most likely the least of the climate drivers which should be of consideration. The Blue team, of course, would vigorously object to that argument as it clearly disproves their main and only contention of CO2 as being the only climate driver of import. This is where highlighting known historical weather/climate patterns can cut their argument into pieces.
The warming effect of GH gases are based on the theoretical calculations of molecular physics. These formulas have been further tuned in some degree in the laboratory conditions. The formula of CO2 has been checked also in the real climate conditions in the Atacama desert in Chile, where the disturbing effects of water are minimal. These tests show that the Hitran database has an accuracy better than 1 % for CO2. The water formula is not so clear and researchers use different formulas.
Yes, there are people who believe that the man has never been in the Moon. How you can convince that some scientific facts are true, if you think in this way. Mission impossible.
We used Hitran to design the Yf23 and B2.
clowns at WUWT have zero clue
Before Galileo people were divided into two schools of thought.
The speed of light is finite versus those who thought it was infinite.
Galileo showed it was finite, but his estimate of the true speed was off. Centuries later we continue to refine the answer.
In 1896 we predicted adding c02 will warm the plnet not cool it.
We’ve been doing that experiment.
in 1896 folks though ECS was around 5C. we continue to refine the number.
But no experiment will show that C02 does not warm. If an experiment does show that it’s as mistaken as the experiments that show superluminal velocities.
“In 1896 we predicted adding c02 will warm the plnet not cool it.”
Steve, this is ridiculous… The planet is either warming or cooling. Such a “prediction” has a 50/50 chance of being correct. (and this passes for science?)
I heard today that Al Gore is going to be on CNN at a “town-hall meeting” in front of a big crowd to discuss human-caused Global Warming next Tuesday.
Looks like Al is starting the RedTeam/BlueTeam debate early, and plugging his new movie, or course.
I smell fear.
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
—Tom Paine
I agree with the good Reverend. I see no evidence of ANY warming due to CO2. Yet to be determined in the magnificent intricacies of The Great Theory are any and all negative feedback elements. The existence of these should be obvious just by the studiously blind eye that all possibilities get from the Warmist camp. This betrays the fact these so-called scientists know full well that there are unknowns in The Great Theory which threaten to negate the entire corpulent monstrosity.
Socialism has failed in every application but its adherents soldier on through AGW. They are acolytes of a religion. Anti development, anti technology, anti truth, anti individualism and anti human. This is a political battle for the world’s soul! The enemy is disingenuous to a degree that matches the Communists of an earlier time. They seek power for their own sake!
Peer review is an inside joke.
How does Nic Lewis manage to get published
Good lesson on global warming from Holdren:
“Breathtaking”: The White House Releases Its Climate Heavy Hitter on the Polar Vortex”
“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” Holdren asserts. Watch it:”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/john-holdren-video-polar-vortex/
That John Holdren……….objective scientist that he is, comes out with this “special” video explaining to the captured minds why they should not question the position on global warming/climate change or be skeptical of anything related to it.
The record cold got some minds actually thinking critically about the belief system and were moving towards questioning some of the “settled science” that their high priests of the global warming/climate change cult taught them.
Just believe everything that he says and trust him. Don’t ask questions. Don’t think critically. Don’t be skeptical. Climate science is as settled as gravity. We can represent the climate accurately with hundreds of the exactly right equations in our global climate models and project it for the next 100 years. Climate scientists and modelers are way smarter than the rest of us, so we should trust them and not notice the growing disparity between model temperature projections and observations.
Observations will eventually catch up because the flawless theory is settled science. Just like the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun…………….NOT!!!
Bit like a court not allowing a defense, only a prosecution. It would laughed out of judicial circles, but guess who would want such a thing?, the prosecution.
I followed a recent legal case in a developing country, where the legal system was so intent on getting a conviction, they actually lambasted the defense for even putting up a case and trying to point out things, which in fact was very sound. Same thing.
Just include the classical computable quantitatively testable undergraduate level physics of radiative equilibrium for arbitrary spectra and gravitational energy balance which fills in the gap between that radiative balance and our surface temperature . Trump’s “tiny tiny” is calculable .
http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170602&t=2&i=1187293561&r=LYNXMPED504C6&w=940
Just noticed the picture caption. Can’t make it up, lol! I’m pretty sure the stars aren’t over there. Even Barry looks skeptical.
Holdren should return to his passion for writing about mass human depopulation options . Civil of course .
What is he afraid of . Weren’t his ideas for mass population elimination supposed to be discussed either ?
Why would anyone listen to this guy ?
Most published research is wrong. Most scientists go their entire working life without doing anything actually useful for society. Many more breakthroughs in science are achieved by maverick genius than by consensus but boy is it better for the career of the mediocre to be in with the in-crowd.
A few things are clear:
>When you have to doctor the source data to prove your theory ‘correct’ then your theory is likely worthless.
>When your job depends on a scare story being true then it is unlikely that your endorsement of the scare story is worth listening to.
>When you have spent much of your career being proved wrong all the time then you should not be regarded as an expert.
>When the policy based on the science clearly does more harm than good then an independent science review is essential.
>97% of the ‘climate-concerned’ are sanctimonious hypocrites.
>When you avoid debate, call people names like den1er, talk about the number of folk who agree with you instead of comparing predictions versus reality then you don’t even trust your own arguments.
Does this have to go the way of the DDT ban where millions of the 3rd world poor had to die in order to satisfy Western middle-class eco-angst?
JasG – well said – thank you for your excellent post.
You wrote regarding the global warming scare:
“Does this have to go the way of the DDT ban where millions of the 3rd world poor had to die in order to satisfy Western middle-class eco-angst?”
Regrettably, this has already happened. Many trillions of dollars and many millions of lives have been squandered on what is clearly a false allegation of dangerous global warming.
Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 2 million per year globally.
“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
In the developed world, green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
In the developing world, global warming nonsense has thwarted the development of much-needed energy systems that would have greatly improved the quality of life and reduced illnesses and premature deaths due to energy poverty.
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Furthermore, if the trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism were put to good use, we could have saved many millions of lives. For a fraction of the money spent on global warming nonsense, we could have installed clean water and sanitation systems in every village in the world. About 2 million children below the age of five die from contaminated water each year. In the three decades that global warming has been a popular obsession, that is 60 million kids – more than died on all sides in WW2.
There are very serious ethical issues here that should be addressed. It’s not just about squandering trillions of dollars of scarce global resources – it is how those valuable resources could have been better allocated, and the consequences of not doing so.
Holdren what are you afraid of ? Someone finding out the earth doesn’t have a fever .