NavigationSearchRecent Commentson the cool track... in saving the planet from global warming... 4 hours 36 min ago fear... in scummo was doing his shopping at the little shop of horrors... 7 hours 12 min ago remember when... in your thoughts will be sanitized at a US pelosi re-education camp... 8 hours 6 min ago welcome to sanity, alan... in pardon me... 13 hours 11 min ago of course he did not mean unite... in I hope he's read it... especially the bit about peace and turning the other cheek... 15 hours 29 min ago he called for americans to unite... in I hope he's read it... especially the bit about peace and turning the other cheek... 16 hours 8 min ago or less... in life was meant to be easy... 17 hours 20 min ago losing twittering disciples... in scummo was doing his shopping at the little shop of horrors... 1 day 1 hour ago new guy, same old shit... in a fizzer... so far.... 1 day 1 hour ago when the guardian is worse than news corp's jesus... in Train sets or baby dolls?... 1 day 5 hours ago Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
climate trends, decades into the future...A scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various Cabinet officials. If the Trump administration chooses to reject the pending national Climate Science Special Report, it would be more damaging than pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Full stop. This is a bold claim, but as an economist and scientist who was a vice chair of the committee that shepherded the last national climate assessment report to its completion, I can explain why this is the case. Informing Policy With FactsTo see why the Climate Science Special Report is so important, first consider some historical context. In 1990 Congress mandated that government scientists prepare and transmit a report to the president and the Congress every four years that “integrates, evaluates, and interprets” findings of the United States Global Change Research Program. It must characterize the “effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems and biological diversity.” It also calls for scientists to project climate trends decades into the future. read more: https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/17/trump-rejection-national-climate-r...
|
a cage fight...
Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has called for a “red team-blue team” review to challenge the science behind climate change. “The American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion about this supposed threat to this country,” he said on a radio show, adding he hoped to hold the exercise in the fall.
Most commonly, red team-blue team reviews are used as a mechanism to improve security of information systems or military defenses. The blue team is associated with an institution, the owner of an asset or a plan. The red team is charged with attacking the blue team, with the goal of revealing vulnerabilities.
I have participated in red team-blue team exercises and in many reviews that share characteristics with their philosophy. Whether the review is cast as a hostile intruder, a devil’s advocate or scenario planning, there is always the spirit of challenge by an antagonist.
This can take many forms. As a climate researcher, I have participated in reviews where weather and climate projects were investigated for budget reductions. Others examined the role of high-risk research and technology along the critical path of a project. I have participated in studies of management acumen and how projects fit into a national and international political and scientific context.
I have also participated in forums of scientific debate. This is where scientists provided evidence supporting competing arguments to explain unresolved observed behaviors. The arguments were testable, hence, scientific hypotheses. From my experience in both types of review, I can say confidently that red team-blue team exercises are not a mechanism for scientific debate.
They are not designed to take a testable hypothesis and then look at whether observations and theory support or refute it. They are more like Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight, causing disruption, distortion and chaos.
And so, Pruitt’s call for a red team-blue team review is not designed to test the scientific robustness of our knowledge of climate change. Rather, it is part of the