Thursday, March 30, 2017

Do We Need Climate Change "Red Teams" ???

Prominent scientists operating outside the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund "red teams" to investigate "natural" causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations' climate science panel.

The suggestion for a counter-investigative science force – or red team approach – was presented in prepared testimony by scientists known for questioning the influence of human activity on global warming. It comes at a time when President Donald Trump and other members of the administration have expressed doubt about the accepted science of climate change, and are considering drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research.

A main mission of red teams would be to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, including the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports are widely considered the authority on climate science.

You can read the rest @

Something like this should ALREADY be part of climate change research, as both "null" and "alternative" hypotheses are basic features of the scientific method:

By the way, the CIA did something like this a while back, calling it a "Team B":

The problem inherent in such an approach is "which team's findings are you gonna believe?" Frankly, you're going to pick the one YOU like, and that typically will be the one that fits in with YOUR politics. In the past this has led to erroneous findings about the USSR ... and to the futile search for Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMDs.

Adding to the complexity of the problem is the amount of disinformation on the subject. For example, it is NOT true that 97% of scientists agree with the theory of man-made climate change (or whatever you wish to call it). You can read about that issue here:

No comments:

Post a Comment