Experts call for ‘Red Teams’ to challenge UN climate science panelPosted: April 1, 2017
““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.
Basing all government climate research funding on one narrow theory was never a smart policy.
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.
View original post 411 more words