R.I.P. Scout26
Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”
"They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
And when "data adjustments" become routine . . . everyone's mental alarm bells ought to start going off.
Experienced scientists who supported the climate warming theory attempted to respond to the challenges suggested by the newer scientists. In doing so, the global warming climate theory became more complicated and assumed too much, contributing to the overall demise of the theory.Many people tried to remodel their theories on climate in order to have them work with what opponents were seeing over the long term. Climate warming theorists reworded their theories many times, and even though they said to have thought the theory of global warming was doomed, they stood by it and tried to make it work.
Experienced chemists who supported Stahl's phlogiston theory attempted to respond to the challenges suggested by Lavoisier and the newer chemists. In doing so, phlogiston theory became more complicated and assumed too much, contributing to the overall demise of the theory.[16] Many people tried to remodel their theories on phlogiston in order to have the theory work with what Lavoisier was doing in his experiments. Pierre Macquer reworded his theory many times, and even though he is said to have thought the theory of phlogiston was doomed, he stood by phlogiston and tried to make it work.[19]
And they make fun of Trump for "alternate facts." I always thought that data represented facts. Once you "adjust" data, you no longer have data -- you then have fiction.
Does this mean al gore has to return all that money he made on the carbon exchange?And didn't he gat a Nobel prize too?
