File:Science and Climate Hearing March29,2017.png

● https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-science-committee-calls-on-alt-science-to-drive-policy/

● https://www.wired.com/2017/03/scientific-theories-gop-debate/

● https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

Washington Post / Comments

BluesDx

2:01 PM EDT

We should also create red teams to discredit the fossil theory, debunk carbon dating , and figure how many animals fit inside the Ark. For that fact, do away with physics - and let luddites run DARPA, because everyone knows that science is fake news

Ingersol

1:57 PM EDT

So where is John Christy's faithful assistant Roy Spencer? He should be discussing his groundbreaking research that led him to conclude:

“We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”

David Acklam

1:54 PM EDT

The question, is whether the current 'independent' boards are really independent...

Or whether group-think, confirmation bias & similar faults have produced a 'consensus' where one should not exist....

Ingersol

1:54 PM EDT

well, Curry and Christy could do a lot to debunk one myth right off the bat. That is the myth that you can't get government grants if you disagree with the consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Between the two of them, these long time deniers have received at least $10 million in such grants.

DoobyMcDuck420

1:53 PM EDT

End of Times.

BRC14

1:52 PM EDT [Edited]

Lets be clear, there can be no dissent, no questioning and no energy give to anything other than the "consensus". Never mind that predicting the future (forecasting) by humans has never been very successful. This would include economists, sports handicappers, stock analysts, market timers, meteorologists etc. I recall the consensus by pollsters, political operatives, top journalists, etc. that Trump did not have a chance at the Presidency. We were all (including me) shocked when he won. I believe there are smart people that believe we have a climate problem. What makes me question them the most is the fact that anyone that disagrees whatsoever is marginalized, threatened, belittled, fired etc etc etc. It is clear to me that any questioning, even partially is shouted down and defamed as quickly as possible. Until such time as that stops I will continue to question, (not reject) the "consensus".

Bill DeMott

2:01 PM EDT

You are completely wrong about how science works. Scientists submit their articles to scientific journals and they are evaluated by peers. If the work is credible, it's published. That's how people like Christy get their work published. But there are only a handful of "skeptical" scientists versus thousands supporting the consensus. Even Curry and Christy are not rejecting greenhouse gas theory. Instead, they just state that effects are much less than what the scientific evidence says.

Soudesuka

2:01 PM EDT

"Lets be clear, there can be no dissent, no questioning and no energy give to anything other than the "consensus""

Let's be clear: this is complete nonsense.

There's no requirement that ANY climate research follow the consensus. The problem is that people don't WANT the consensus to be correct, so they want to fund research to argue against it.

This 'red team' proposal, in other words, is EXACTLY the thing that the deniers groundlessly accuse the mainstream climatologists of doing.

Soudesuka

1:45 PM EDT

John Christy and Judith Curry.

Well color me completely SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say, that it's THESE TWO who want to fund denier science.

BRC14

2:02 PM EDT

Well there ya go. No one that questions the "consensus" can even be discussed. They are dismissed as "deniers" just as you would dismiss someone by calling them an "idiot" rather than telling them where you disagree. That kind of language makes people like me question your position every time.

Reasonable

1:43 PM EDT

Bring on the Gerrymandered Science! The scientific process doesn't start with a conclusion, it starts with a question and then sets out to prove or disprove. Isn't it a bit early then to dismantle the programs and processes that have already been started if you are now just starting to disprove the theory. If you are forming a panel to verify, why would you start by acting as though your panel had reached a conclusion. Prediction. I predict the Red Team will conclude global warming isn't due to human activity and sponsor legislation that makes it illegal to study climate science or promote any carbon curbing practices. There will also be a renewables tax on wind and solar to pay for the wall. We're all screwed.

elfish

1:53 PM EDT

1. The Universe is 14 billion years old. 2. The Earth is 4 billion years old. 3. The Climate is about 1 billion years old when oxygen levels first approached modern levels. 4. The current Climate is about 2.5 million years when the earth started cycling between ice ages 5. Human beings are about 250,000 years old and we've only lived in one phase of the Earth's climate.

Human beings are dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at rate that is thousands of time faster than any natural source can do it.

The Permian Extinction, which occurred 350 million years ago, was the worst mass extinction in the history of the Earth. It was caused by a rapid rise in temperature that wiped out 96% marine species and 76% of land species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Trias...

During the Permian extinction, the temperature rose at a rate of 1 degree every 7,500 years. The current rate of temperature rise is 1 degree every 83 years. That's 90 times faster than than the Permian Extinctions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Tem...

RynosaurusRex

1:40 PM EDT

I don't see a problem with this. Fact is fact. If global warming is in fact caused primarily by the factors currently being asserted, then these "red teams" will do nothing more than strengthen that conclusion.

Soudesuka

1:47 PM EDT

" If global warming is in fact caused primarily by the factors currently being asserted, then these "red teams" will do nothing more than strengthen that conclusion."

Take evolutionary theory as an example.

Would you support the idea of a "red team" devoted to finding flaws with it, and supporting the 'theory' of intelligent design?

Chris Lehman

1:50 PM EDT

don't we already have people who do that? like creationists?

Reasonable

1:51 PM EDT

The problem is putting the cart before the horse. They've already reached conclusion and now they will invent evidence to support that theory. If it were a legitimate process then it would start with a clean sheet and not the idea that the global scientific community is wrong and set out to prove that. climate change has already been tested and retested and re re re tested and the overwhelming conclusion is that it's due to the activity of man. Now we find that it will cost big corporations dollars to curb our impact and the GOP suddenly thinks the scientists of the world are wrong. An they believe these scientists are wrong based on opinions not on actual testing and experiments and hard data!

Ernie Kwok

1:37 PM EDT

Let me get this straight. The climate change deniers have for years said that climate scientists can't be trusted because they're looking for funding for the government. But funding a "red team" to debunk climate science is completely fine? Especially when it's sole existence is to push an agenda? Are you climate deniers this stupid and dishonest?

Soudesuka

1:47 PM EDT

"Are you climate deniers this stupid and dishonest?"

To put it bluntly, yes.

Bubba Schmertz

1:33 PM EDT

Here, let me help you with a very slight edit of the headline; These 'scientists' want to create red teams to challenge climate research. There, fixed it for you.

Bill DeMott

1:32 PM EDT

Science is based on the peer reviewed process. If you want to critique a study, you need to have your references, data, analysis and writing in a way that passes peer review. I've been a peer reviewer for over 1200 studies over the course of 30 years. I often recommend publication for studies that challenge my views, when the evidence appears solid. I also reccommend against publication of some articles that cite my own studies when the science is weak. If the "red team" doesn't publish their work in scientific venues, there is no reason for scientists to pay attention. We already have too many credible articles to read.

Bubba Schmertz

1:37 PM EDT

Their goal is to throw out doubt that Infowars, Rush, Fox and Breitbart can shovel to the eager ignorant to bolster their beliefs that it's all a Chinese hoax, a plot to redistribute wealth, or greedy scientists wanting grant money. They don't have to do quality work, just create web links that the armies of darkness can turn to so they can ignore the problem.

Rossami

1:32 PM EDT

Mikey Mann's comment is laughably hypocritical. He has done precisely what he is accusing others of attempting. Saying he has the ethics of a snake would be a disservice to snakes everywhere.

Soudesuka

1:49 PM EDT

"Mikey Mann's comment is laughably hypocritical. He has done precisely what he is accusing others of attempting. "

No, he actually hasn't. His research is good, and grounded in empirical fact.

He's had it LIED ABOUT a lot, mostly by people trying to discredit him. That might be what you're thinking of.

Ryggy73

1:31 PM EDT

In what way does looking at "the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise" have anything to do with determining the causes and effects of climate change? Unless of course you are starting off from a standpoint of championing "affordable energy, carbon-based or otherwise." This guy (Christy) is a scientist? Really?