Experts call for ‘Red Teams’ to challenge UN climate science panel 

Posted: April 1, 2017 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, IPCC, modelling, Natural Variation, Politics
Tags: ,

Image credit: NASA

Basing all government climate research funding on one narrow theory was never a smart policy.
H/T GWPF

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.

“One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased ‘official’ panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible ‘red teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise,” said witness John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, in his prepared testimony. “I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.”

Wednesday’s hearing, which focused on “the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” is the latest in a series of recent House science committee hearings to challenge the existence or seriousness of climate change.

In their prepared testimonies Wednesday, witnesses called by the committee’s Republican majority suggested that organizations such as the IPCC present a biased view of climate change, and do not represent the views of the entire scientific community. They argued that policymakers would benefit from assembling groups of experts to conduct assessments that challenge the accepted climate narrative.

“A scientist’s job is to continually challenge his/her own biases and ask ‘How could I be wrong?’” Judith Curry, professor emeritus at Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said in her own testimony.

“Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ helps a scientist examine how their conclusions might be misguided and how they might be wrong. Overcoming one’s own biases is difficult; an external devil’s advocate can play a useful role in questioning and criticizing the logic of the argument.” Curry also suggested that red teams or similar panels presenting diverse opinions on climate change could take on this role.

Red teams are special groups designed to improve an organization’s performance by assuming the role of a rival, challenger or devil’s advocate. They have sometimes been used by agencies such as the CIA and the Defense Department to help test out security operations or military tactics by assuming the role of enemies, hackers or foreign governments.

Full report: Experts Call For The Creation Of ‘Red Teams’ To Challenge UN Climate Science Panel | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    “One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased ‘official’ panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible ‘red teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise,” said witness John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, in his prepared testimony. “I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.” [bold added]
    . . .
    “What’s happened in the IPCC is they’ve just stopped selecting people who disagree with the consensus,” Christy told The Washington Post. “So you have a consensus of those who agree with the consensus.”

  2. Bitter&twisted says:

    “Red teams” sound totally sensible.
    Which is why the “consensus” will reject them.

  3. TinyCO2 says:

    They should have done it ages ago. Climate scientists have had so little genuine opposition that their arguments are very weak and don’t do the job they’re supposed to – convince the public. Anyone who believes in CAGW should want there to be Red Teams. Bet they don’t though.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Dellers writes: More Climate Fake News From The BBC

    “Oh Professor Doctor Mann, Sir, may it please your eminence to descend from your radiant cloud for a few precious moments and explain to us mere mortals why your amazing and unquestionably brilliant new paper on global warming demonstrates you to be even more right about climate change than you were even in the days when you won your Nobel prize?” fawned and grovelled the BBC’s interviewer from his prostrate position on the studio floor.

    Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/31/delingpole-more-climate-fake-news-from-the-bbc/

  5. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ““Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ helps a scientist examine how their conclusions might be misguided and how they might be wrong. Overcoming one’s own biases is difficult; an external devil’s advocate can play a useful role in questioning and criticizing the logic of the argument.” Curry also suggested that red teams or similar panels presenting diverse opinions on climate change could take on this role.”

    Cue the outrage from the eco-extremist lobby and the Left for sceptical scientists like Curry suggesting to put much needed objectivity back into the study of climate…

    Hopefully such red-teams will put an end to the destructive monopolistic funding that flows one-way toward “man-made” (CO2) attributions and not to natural studies.

    The monopolistic funding conundrum self-perpetuates :

    • Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
    • How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
    • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

    The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/climate-money-monopoly-science-jonova-judith-curry-ipcc-update/

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    A red team approach will not work in this context.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    We already know that from observation.

  8. oldbrew says:

    The status quo doesn’t work either.

  9. […] Source: Experts call for ‘Red Teams’ to challenge UN climate science panel  | Tallbloke’s Talksho… […]

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s an approach that will work….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s