3 ms·

I think that quote signals a misunderstanding of what a Red Team is. It doesn't exist to disprove / break / destroy something for the sake of destroying it. It'

by throwaway2016a 10y ago

I think that quote signals a misunderstanding of what a Red Team is. It doesn't exist to disprove / break / destroy something for the sake of destroying it. It's not an enemy. It is there to challenge and find weaknesses in the armor before the enemy and fix those weaknesses before they can be used against them. And further more it is for the phycological benefit of the main team knowing that everything they do is going to be attacked. That they can't just rest on their laurels. With that said. If the goal is miss-guided but the "Red team" actually does good science (and not propaganda) it might have the same effect anyway.

anigbrowl 10y ago
The red team idea makes great sense in espionage or epidemiology, where you have an actively antagonistic opponent whose causal vectors are obscure. I'm all for brainstorming, lateral thinking, and the prioritization of imagination - when other methods are failing. Notice how all the (supposed) cleverness in these proposals is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. Not a word about novel approaches to mitigation or adaptation. Also, has anyone noticed how the people who fuss most loudly about being intellectually pure scientists and alleging the existence of a conspiracy among climatologists are perfectly comfortable with sweeping predictions based on astonishingly rudimentary models where economics are concerned.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  where you have an actively antagonistic opponent This is the case in climate research. We know from the East Anglia leak that at least some climatologists intentionally interfere with those who disagree with them. (To be sure, they may have very good reasons to be frustrated with those opponents, but that doesn't excuse the behavior) is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. That was the first thing I noticed. I'm of the "lukewarm" mindset on climate, so I'm looking at both camps as an outsider. And I cannot fathom why either of them get so worked up about the "anthropogenic" part of it. If it's going to cause problems for us in the future, I just don't get why it matters if it's our fault or not. If something bad's going to happen, we ought to try to avoid that outcome whether it's coming from natural causes or is ultimately self-inflicted.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Ethical lapses are sadly a possibility in any scientific endeavor, but to generalize from a few examples of that to a global conspiracy isn't scientific either.

anigbrowl 10y ago

The red team idea makes great sense in espionage or epidemiology, where you have an actively antagonistic opponent whose causal vectors are obscure. I'm all for brainstorming, lateral thinking, and the prioritization of imagination - when other methods are failing. Notice how all the (supposed) cleverness in these proposals is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. Not a word about novel approaches to mitigation or adaptation. Also, has anyone noticed how the people who fuss most loudly about being intellectually pure scientists and alleging the existence of a conspiracy among climatologists are perfectly comfortable with sweeping predictions based on astonishingly rudimentary models where economics are concerned.

CWuestefeld 10y ago
where you have an actively antagonistic opponent This is the case in climate research. We know from the East Anglia leak that at least some climatologists intentionally interfere with those who disagree with them. (To be sure, they may have very good reasons to be frustrated with those opponents, but that doesn't excuse the behavior) is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. That was the first thing I noticed. I'm of the "lukewarm" mindset on climate, so I'm looking at both camps as an outsider. And I cannot fathom why either of them get so worked up about the "anthropogenic" part of it. If it's going to cause problems for us in the future, I just don't get why it matters if it's our fault or not. If something bad's going to happen, we ought to try to avoid that outcome whether it's coming from natural causes or is ultimately self-inflicted.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Ethical lapses are sadly a possibility in any scientific endeavor, but to generalize from a few examples of that to a global conspiracy isn't scientific either.