
Scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climate research - frgtpsswrdlame
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/
======
djrogers
FTA: "I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different
conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate."

I'm all for continued research, and I'm especially in favor of
funding/encouraging research that opposes common viewpoints and conclusions
regardless of the subject (yeah, turns out the Sun doesn't revolve around the
Earth - maybe we shouldn't have been so hard on all those heretics). I look at
a quote like this though, and come away thinking that this guy already has his
conclusions, and his research will be solely about finding 'evidence' to
support it.

~~~
drewbuschhorn
As a former chemist, I think there's always a role for a gadfly in science (or
in any profession). But part of being a gadfly is acknowledging you're
probably wrong and the majority is probably right, and not trying to
intentionally sabotage others' efforts. For a good example of what it doesn't
look like, take a read at Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, where he argues that the
mainstream climate science community isn't just factually wrong, but they're
actively deluding themselves. That sort of statement doesn't contribute
anything to the situation since the only way they can stop 'deluding'
themselves is to accept the opposing view.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the status quo, so long as it's done
honestly, with the humility to say: "I 'm probably wrong," and that's where
these guys seem to go wrong. They're sure the majority is wrong to begin with.

~~~
qohen
_take a read at Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, where he argues that the
mainstream climate science community isn 't just factually wrong, but they're
actively deluding themselves._

I don't think that's an accurate description of what he's saying -- he's made
a point several times (e.g. [0][1]) of challenging the _models_ , not the
underlying science, comparing them to economic models, which he feels, having
majored in economics (and having studied and built his own [1]) are not
reliable. One may disagree with him about models and modeling, but I think
it's helpful to understand what he's actually saying.

I'm putting an excerpt here from a recent blog post [0] he did which I think
demonstrates my summary above to be a truer understanding of where he's coming
from:

 _I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me that the chemistry and physics parts
of climate science are probably pretty locked down. I give that stuff full
credibility.

The measurements of temperature, ice, and sea levels over time are probably
fairly good, but I observe disagreements among scientists on how best to
measure. I’ll give the measurements an 85% credibility.

When it comes to the complex climate models, I’ve never seen a complex,
iterative model – of the type that includes human assumptions and human
measurements – reliably predict the future multiple years out. I don’t think
it has ever been done, and perhaps it never will be. I give the complex
climate models a 10% credibility rating. And I am only that generous because
perhaps this is the exception to the pattern I observe that says complexity
always hides the future, as opposed to predicting it._

BTW, I think the next paragraph, where he describes the psychological aspects
of how people evaluate things when they don't have deep expertise or knowledge
is interesting and possibly useful for understanding how to get through to
people (Adams' blogs a lot about persuasion/psychology and how so often that
is more important than facts in shaping people's views of things):

 _This is a good time to remind you that I have neither the qualifications nor
the time to evaluate the climate science models on my own. So I’m stuck with
using pattern recognition – which is not science, and it is not reason. And my
pattern recognizer says humans use complexity of this sort to hide the truth,
not to reveal it. If scientists want to change my mind, they need to show me
historical examples in which things “like this” did a good job of predicting
the future. You have to work on my pattern memory to change my mind, not my
knowledge of climate science._

Again, you may disagree with him about models and modelling, but he's
identified why some intelligent people, who are not science-deniers, may have
issues with some aspects of climate-science.

[0] [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-
my-b...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-
climate-science)

[1] [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-
dicap...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicaprio-can-
persuade-me-on-climate)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think that's an accurate description at all of what he's saying --
> he's made a point several times (e.g. [0][1] )of challenging the models, not
> the underlying science

Science is the process of developing predictive models. Challenging models
_is_ challenging the science by which those models are developed.

Trying to distinguish between these two is fundamentally misunderstanding what
science _is_.

~~~
lsh123
Unrelated to the climate change stuff I think you need to differentiate "the
process" and "the models" (which is the result of the process). Epicycles
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle))
was a good predictive model used for a while and developed as a part of
science process. Yet, I think we all agree that Copernicus was right
challenging them and he did it in accordance with the science process.

~~~
brandmeyer
We came full circle back to epicycles, though. Fourier transforms can be
viewed as a way to model any periodic signal as an infinite series of
epicycles.

------
ideonexus
We already have a well-established method for challenging climate research.
It's called the "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" report [1].
It comprises 1,500 pages, surveying the results from thousands of journal
articles, and is written by 259 experts from fields including meteorology,
physics, oceanography, statistics, engineering, ecology, social sciences and
economics. The IPCC regularly updates and republishes this report to include
more recent findings and data.

Anyone who has bothered to download and even skim this report knows how
exhaustive, thorough, and--most of all-- _conservative_ it is in its
predictions and findings. It dedicates a significant amount of space to
pointing out where its predictions have failed and where the data does not
support the theory of global warming.

Anyone who wants to "challenge" climate research by completely circumventing
the existing dialogue that has been taking place in peer-reviewed journals for
decades now to take their case directly to the policy-makers is a charlatan.

[1] [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/)

------
sampo
There is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, founded in 2010. They
brought physicists from outside climate science to do a clean reanalysis of
temperature data.

I think they really kept open the possibility that NASA, NOAA and the UK Met
Office had all processed and interpreted the temperature data wrong. After
their reanalysis, their result was the same as other work before them.

[http://berkeleyearth.org/about/](http://berkeleyearth.org/about/)

~~~
cromulent
Thanks for this. I like the way they openly share their data, analysis, and
code.

------
waderyan
Reminds me of "My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic"
[https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e367-4087-93aa-1f90b5de1...](https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e367-4087-93aa-1f90b5de1cfd.html)

Professor Pielke (his words) "was under constant attack for years by
activists, journalists and politicians." The pressure to stop asking critical
questions became overwhelming.

Seems there could be a place for viewpoints that don't go with the consensus,
especially in an arena that is so highly politicized.

~~~
davesque
But it's not a political issue. How politicized it is shouldn't matter.

~~~
adameast9000
In a perfect world yes, but lots of scientific disciplines are heavily
influenced by politics and public opinion in terms of funding, University
support, etc. We can't pretend it doesn't matter

~~~
splawn
It doesn't matter to the supporting data. Thermometers don't run off of
opinion. I guess that is what we need to convince people? lol

~~~
seewhatIsee
The money to fund the thermostats may depend on opinion.

~~~
splawn
In a fantasy world complete with international conspirators with god-like
powers..... sure. If you don't like my use of the word "fantasy" then by all
means provide some evidence.

------
unabst
You cannot challenge science with teams. Science can only be challenged with
evidence.

"Prominent scientists operating outside the scientific consensus on climate
change."

That's already a red flag.

Prominent scientists have, and will continue to challenge climate change from
within "the scientific consensus" (whatever that is suppose to mean --
consensus is irrelevant).

Climate change is true not because of a lack of challengers. It is true
because we have only found evidence to support it. It is true because of a
consensus of evidence.

The nature of climate change is highly debatable (= could use more research
and hypotheses) and uncertain (= further understanding is possible). But we
cannot get into "the nature of" while in denial of "the existence of".

~~~
weberc2
> You cannot challenge science with teams. Science can only be challenged with
> evidence.

The goal of the proposed team would be to collect evidence and examine
alternative hypotheses. No one is proposing creating a team for its own sake.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a climate skeptic.

~~~
unabst
> The goal of the proposed team would be to collect evidence and examine
> alternative hypotheses.

But they exist. They are all the scientists already working in the field.
Which is why the next statement is suspect:

> No one is proposing creating a team for its own sake.

I am assuming this Red Team business is about funding. They want to pay people
"outside science" to challenge scientists who are already doing their jobs and
are quite good at it.

That is why this makes no scientific sense. But it makes PERFECT political
sense. It's politics.

~~~
weberc2
The idea is that the existing science is already politically biased, so a new
team will be created to investigate verboten hypotheses, contributing new
evidences to the conversation which might challenge or support the existing
consensus. Whether or not you or I agree with the premises is a different
matter.

------
ocschwar
There already are red-teams looking for evidence against the main consensus on
the climate. Let me explain why you've never heard from them.

Let's start by what climate scientists actually do. Very few of them actually
gather any of their own data. Some get a grant here or there to go on a trip
to Greenland or Antarctica, or to design and launch their own satellite, but
they are few in number. And generally while they get first dibs on their raw
data, it all gets public at a set pace.

What climate scientists mostly do is 1. download raw data from the diverse
array of sources available, 2. run models with them, using C/C++, Fortran and
MPI, 3. distill what they find with Matlab and R, and finally 4. produce
papers.

That's it. If you've experience with analyzing data in Matlab/R/Numpy, with
using queue-based computer resources or AWS, you too can be a climate
scientist. Just apply your knowledge to this narrow field. Done. The only
difference between you and climate scientists is they're paid to do it full
time, with an allowance for buying Beowulf clusters or running up a tab on
other people's.

Observe that the right wing think-tank archipelago around Northern Virgina and
DC has thousands, literally thousands, of people with statistics Phds, and
money for as much playtime on AWS as they want. Climatology is a highly
accessible field to anyone who's every pulled an all nighter with Matlab. And
the right wing sponsors of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, Cato, et cetera, would love, love, to find serious evidence
against the greenhouse effect.

So why haven't they ever stepped forward with anything?

Because there isn't anything out there.

Why has the anti-AGW community ever produced anything that is at or above the
dignity of a middle schooler?

Because middle school taunts is all they have.

~~~
caminante
Check the sibling comment [0] in this thread.

There are known climate consensus red teams.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13989422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13989422)

~~~
ocschwar
You and I would consider Berkeley Earth to be a "red team."

But for right wing politicians, a "red team" either produces evidence against
AGW or stays silent.

------
Orangeair
I think this paragraph is pretty telling:

> “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.”

It is pretty clear for this scientist's choice of words ("biased 'official'
panels", "I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very
different conclusions") that he has no intentions of approaching this in an
unbiased manner. I get the impression that he has an agenda, and he will force
the facts to agree with him.

~~~
pvnick
All science starts with a hypothesis. If the evidence he presents supports
his, then what's the problem? Peer review will illuminate if he is dishonest
in his analysis. The bigger risk is the converse problem, where nobody around
is challenging the consensus. History is rife with examples where the
consensus is wrong.

~~~
UncleMeat
Two problems:

1\. There are plenty of places to publish junk science. This is all somewhere
like Cato needs to keep arguing that climate change isn't real and that is
enough to convince half of the lawmakers. Even if the science is bad, it can
easily influence policy.

2\. You can make this argument until the end of time. When have we done
"enough" research on alternative hypotheses? Never, of course. We can keep on
demanding more research and put off emissions regulations indefinitely.

------
tstactplsignore
Here you can see the problem of these congressional committees: they hear from
a few people on one side, and a few people on the other, completely unaware
that the few denialists they've heard from are _basically all of them_ (Curry
and Christy are pretty infamous), whereas almost every other scientist
disagrees. They should have to sit through 97 witnesses who agree with the
consensus for every 3 who do not- that is the only way to really understand
it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Here you can see the problem of these congressional committees: they hear
> from a few people on one side, and a few people on the other, completely
> unaware that the few denialists they've heard from are basically all of them

The committees (largely their staffs) choose who is going testify, and they
absolutely know this.

To the extent they pretend not to, that's because they are trying to use the
hearing for propaganda purposes.

------
notatoad
So we should cut funding into climate-change related science in general,
_except_ for "science" that is working towards a desired conclusion being
promoted by certain politicians?

That's not really science anymore then, is it? It's more "we should pay some
scientists to support our position"

------
vonnik
Science, by definition, challenges itself. These "red teams" \-- the name
itself is telling -- are a ploy to give industry-funded skeptics the
rhetorical props they need so they can continue to deny climate change and the
large-scale societal and regulatory shifts required to fight it.

------
maxxxxx
If they also create "red teams" to challenge their tax and health care
policies I am all for it.

------
kelvin0
The way I see it, it seems there are 2 issues which get confused a lot:

A) Is there evidence of climate change (Yes/No)

B) Is human activity impacting the climate change (Yes/No)

I think most people across the political spectrum agree with A) Being true
(please correct me if wrong). Of course, some will disagree, just as there are
people who believe the earth is flat. oh, well...

The big contention these days is mostly regarding B). I guess some groups
don't want to deal with the economic ramifications they assume will impact
them if human activity is at the core of the climate change.

On the other hand, if it's not 'our fault' we can carry on and not worry about
finding solutions? I don't completely understand where the 'red team' would
stand on this, anyone care to clarify?

~~~
davesque
I don't believe that climate scientists even see item B as being very much up
for debate. And I feel safe in saying that these red teams would think
otherwise. The writing is on the wall, really. How could it surprise anyone
that this is happening now, given that our current president (and his cabinet)
has deep financial ties with big players in the fossil fuel industry.

~~~
ocschwar
The debate on Item B pretty much ended in 1957.

------
empath75
Conservatives love this kind of nonsense-- they did it during the cold war,
and came up with wildly bad conclusions about Russian intentions and
capabilities:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B)

Then the exact same guys did the same thing in the lead up to the Iraq War:

[http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Bush-
te...](http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Bush-team-sought-
to-snuff-CIA-2600065.php)

The purpose of this kind of thing isn't scientific inquiry, it's a blatant
attempt to muddy the waters in order to advance a political agenda.

------
nkurz
A video of the testimony is here:
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/climate-
science-a...](http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/climate-science-
assumptions-policy-implications-and-scientific-method)

At the bottom of that page are links to the written testimony of the 4
witnesses:

Curry:
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.h...](http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Curry%20Testimony_0.pdf)

Christy:
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.h...](http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Christy%20Testimony_1.pdf)

Mann:
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.h...](http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Mann%20Testimony.pdf)

Pielke:
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.h...](http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Pielke%20Testimony_0.pdf)

------
alistproducer2
>"I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different
conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate."

The sheer stupidity of saying we should fight biased research by funding a
plainly biased team of "researchers" who, with hat in hand, state their
conclusions before they've even begun is mind boggling. I can't say it
surprises me though. There's lots of mind-bogglingly stupid shit happening in
national politics all over the world.

------
imh
It's really a shame. Some fields are undergoing reproducibility crises at the
moment, and I'd expect there are innumerable questions that you could survey
those communities about, only to return with a strong but irreproducible
consensus. Peer review is hard enough without challenging the status quo, and
peer review has demonstrated itself to be an incomplete mechanism for science
(short term, at least, and we need climate action in the short term). With
that in mind, red teams sound great.

However, when doing anything statistical, there are questions you can debate
before and after you collect data, and that distinction is incredibly relevant
here. Having a red team push back against methodology while no-one has yet
seen the data sounds great. But if you have a red team supporting your
methodology before you collect data, only to challenge it based on the
conclusions, you're basically endorsing using your "researcher degrees of
freedom" to push in a particular direction, and it's terrible. It's p-hacking
with an agenda. It's oxymoronic to ask people to do science that leads to
specific conclusions, and that feels like where this is going.

------
wfo
Obviously this scheme is just political pandering. They want to create an
organization whose sole purpose is to assault the legitimacy of factual
science for political purposes, and put it inside the government under the
guise of "scientific rigor".

But it made me consider: we are facing a serious crisis of replication in
psychology. Medical studies are very unreliable. Economics is quite truly a
voodoo science; state the conclusion that best lines your pockets and you can
find a scientist who says it's just good economic sense and anyone who
disagrees is "ignorant of economics". Climate change is based on science but
because of the denial there's this air of a faith-based test whenever it's
discussed (oh, you're one of THEM?). All of science, since it's a human
activity, tends towards an echo chamber. Conservatives don't become social
psychologists, lo and behold all social psychology research is blatantly
pointed towards reaffirming liberal world views. Communists don't become
economists, so economics has become the clergy of unrepentant neoliberalism.
Plenty of people aren't particularly concerned about the environment for its
own sake, but none of them become climate scientists. This is partially
because of initial ideological attraction, but it's largely because these
fields require conformity. Being a detractor is difficult: undergraduate
lectures are you being lectured about things you fundamentally disagree with
which are often not scientific. Every person in your classes and your
professor all agree in lockstep about these fundamental concerns except you.
When you advance, it's hard to get respect or publications. No matter how
rigorous, trying to get a paper published against a tide that strong is
impossible. You're ostracized, minimized -- that's even if you get that far,
which most don't. They pick a different topic of study where they feel more
comfortable.

At the end of the day, that's a problem. I think a red team is a great idea in
science, if that means people can get grant money and publications and respect
for verifying and testing experiments, conducting them again, reproducing
them, re-checking the work of others in an adversarial fashion, challenging
premises.

But you should NOT have anyone be a dedicated red-teamer. That's politicizing
the whole process and giving credence where none is due. They should be
selected at random from the scientific body and required to advocate against
the consensus as best they can for the period of a grant, the way lawyers do
pro bono work as a public service, then go back to their regular research.

~~~
hyperbovine
Medical studies with proper protocol and sufficient power are actually
extremely reliable. Compared to the rest of the fields you mentioned, climate
science is way more replicable and data-driven. The empirical evidence is so
overwhelming that even the deniers no longer deny that the planet is warming.
Now they have shifted the goalposts to quibble about whether this is 'man-
made' or not. While harder to establish, there is abundant evidence supporting
this hypothesis as well. It's also important to distinguish between this
testing question and climate forecasting, which is harder and more error-
prone.

~~~
basurihn
Actually, 90 percent of medical studies are pretty much horseshit.

Source
[http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

Or ask a good cardiologist after a few drinks.

The closer you get to the source, the more you find out just how much we
delude ourselves about what we know.

Sometimes BOTH sides have a hidden agenda.

~~~
hyperbovine
I've read that paper more than once. It doesn't contradict what I said.

------
placeybordeaux
> the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and
> otherwise

This has nothing to do with determining if climate change is man made or not.
This is an attempt to support a political argument.

------
digitalmaster
Science doesn't play politics. Miami is already flooding! Tic Toc Tic Toc

------
loup-vaillant
The title is missing a leading "These". This small word is important, without
it I assumed the Washinton post were talking about scientists _in general_
—when it fact it does not.

------
leecarraher
So the discriminative scientist neural network competes against our generative
scientist neural network in a zero-sum game regarding climate change. What are
the laws against back propping a scientist?

------
anigbrowl
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik)

------
doktrin
TIL "red team" means "bias confirmation"

------
exabrial
Healthy science is letting unpopular opinions be disinfected with sunlight.

