10 ms·
EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science
- creaghpatr 9y agoThe title is kind of misleading. From the article: >The program will use "red team, blue team" exercises to conduct an "at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science," the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations.
- Beltiras 9y agoBiggest question being how the teams are chosen.
- maxxxxx 9y agoMost likely they will all come from affected industries since they are the only stakeholders in Pruitt's mind.
- ue_ 9y ago"U.S. climate science" Is US science any different to European or Japanese etc. science?
- thehardsphere 9y agoYes. European and Japanese science isn't funded by the US government, so it's not any business of the EPA.
- enraged_camel 9y agoI don't think it's misleading at all. Here is more context: "The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," the source said. So they will recruit "the best in the fields which study climate" which basically means they will recruit a few of those "scientists" who get paid to reject climate science and put them on the "red team" or whatever, and that team will be listened to exclusively by the administration.
- m12k 9y agoI'm reminded of this wargame that was essentially scripted to give a specific outcome (and restarted and changed when that outcome did not happen): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 I wonder if they'll employ a similar approach here?
- theothermkn 9y agoAs Senator Franken pointed out, the scientific process itself is a "red team, blue team" exercise, and the settled result of that process, the consensus view of climate scientists, is that human-induced climate change via carbon emissions is happening and is a real threat. The article title is technically correct, in that at least one of those teams will be on the "critique" side. It is also substantially correct, germane, and honest in implying with its scare quotes that this new effort is superfluous, unless it is an effort to gum up the works with climate denial.
- kevinavery 9y agoGreat clip of Sen. Franken explaining to Rick Perry how science works: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4674659/franken-vs-perry-climate-science https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4674659/franken-vs-perry-clim...
- beams_of_light 9y agoPerhaps relevant: https://fullfact.org/blog/2017/jun/awarded-500000-omidyar-network-open-society-foundations-automated-factchecking/ https://fullfact.org/blog/2017/jun/awarded-500000-omidyar-ne...
- dboreham 9y agoDidn't the oil industry already try this tactic for the past few decades?
- tdb7893 9y agoI think Al Franken referenced some time where some Koch brothers funded institution already did this. That's also ignoring the fact that this is already how science works for the most part
- chrisbennet 9y agoIn the video, Al Franken pointed out that the Koch brothers had funded a "red team" of climate skeptics - and the skeptics (or at least one of them) became believers and stated as much. Oh snap!
- Brakenshire 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Tempera...
- kevmo 9y agoI predict that this will be the new primary source of propaganda undermining public belief in climate science.
- TearsInTheRain 9y agoIf it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science.
- GVIrish 9y agoExcept all of Scott Pruitt's actions to date indicate that it is not being done in good faith.
- klipt 9y agoPruitt is bought by the fossil fuel industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
- dragonwriter 9y ago> If it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science. “Aye, and”—to quote Scotty—“if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.” It's not like Pruitt and his boss haven't already staked out a definitive position on climate science, or like Pruitt would structure (or his boss would tolerate him structuring) this in any way not assured to support that position.
- Avshalom 9y agoIt will not. We've already done this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-... It didn't help.
- 9y ago
- joshuamorton 9y agoAs an interesting note, the Murray referenced in the article is the same Robert Murray that threatened to (and then did) sue John Oliver after his segment on coal this month [0][1]. [0]: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/22/media/john-oliver-coal-king-murray-lawsuit/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/22/media/john-oliver-coal-king-... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8
- gpm 9y agoIn principle this sort of technique seems like something that could benefit any sort of science, including climate science, immensely. The number of studies with unreproducible, and likely flat out wrong results, is scarily high. (And yes, there is certainly real critique that can happen in climate science, not on whether or not climate change exists at this point, but on details of certain papers, and even topics like "how realistic is the clathrate gun hypothesis".) Unfortunately in practice this likely ends up being the government sponsoring the same sort of bullshit that the oil companies have been putting out for ages, and not real critique. Red team/blue team is also a unfortunate name given the political connotations...
- KirinDave 9y agoI'd be more optimistic if Pruitt hadn't flat out said his plan was to discredit everything...
- unabst 9y agoThis. We need to change the world so such statements immediately discredit the people who made them in a consequential manner. They already do for some people, but not where it matters. We're already in such a world when it comes to racism and sexual harassment (Clipper's owner, Fox news anchors). We're just not there yet for political integrity, an oxymoron of sorts.
- vannevar 9y ago"And yes, there is certainly real critique that can happen in climate science..." The kind of critique that routine happens within the scientific community, over time. Scientists are highly motivated to prove the majority wrong, because that's how you make your career, by finding something new that everyone else missed. By contrast, the EPA 'critique' will be a political charade, a circus of crackpots and shills assembled by the administration to rationalize its predetermined policy decisions.
- gpm 9y agoIf that kind of critique was happening routinely we wouldn't have 50% of scientists not being able to reproduce their own paper [0]. The sad truth is that incentives have aligned so that sufficient critique doesn't happen, and that showing some paper doesn't reproduce isn't going to make your career. Government funding to encourage such critique would be great. I don't disagree on this likely be(com)ing a political charade. [0] http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-...
- jjaredsimpson 9y agoThe IPCC has already done the work of summarizing climate science. The role of government is to respond to those truths with estimates of the negative impacts and estimates of the cost of mitigation and then come to a consensus around actions. This is just obfuscation designed to drive a wedge between accepted science and policymakers. Obfuscaters just want to avoid making the hard arguments over their desires to have either zero mitigation or to actively accelerate human caused climate change. It's a perfectly fine position to hold that climate change is happening but that you don't care. It's not fine to lie about it happening purposefully create and spread lies in the public space. Just make the argument that the money would be better spent elsewhere.
- metalliqaz 9y agoHas anyone ever got Pruitt in front of a camera and asked him the following question? "Contaminants in our air and water cause X billion dollars of added health care costs and lost productivity to Americans every year. Rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns cause Y billion dollars of damage to real estate and crop yields every year. What is the EPA going to do to control these losses?" I really want this anti-science conservative to answer the question about what he really cares about: the wallets of people who own lots of things. His side doesn't care about "good science" or objective truth, and they don't care about the public's well being. They care about money above all else and I think that's where the discussion should be focused.
- jackmott 9y ago> extreme weather patterns cause Y billion dollars of damage We have no idea what global warming related Y is yet, so we can't give him that number. But Pruitt isn't someone who is going to listen to reason anyway, he is paid to protect the fossil fuel industry.
- metalliqaz 9y agoI take your point, but I'm not really talking global warming here. I'm just going with the stuff everyone can see right now. Rising sea levels, drought, hurricanes, etc. The idea being that you get Pruitt to respond without having to invoke the buzzwords that shut everything down.
- ceejayoz 9y agoThe talking points have moved from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault" in the last decade or so. The response would just be "the science isn't settled on whether humans caused that" and stuff like "plants need CO2, so maybe it's good!"
- metalliqaz 9y agoStrangely enough, there seems to be a believe among non-science-literate liberals that CO2 is a poison. Obviously this is not the case and plants can increase biomass like gangbusters with extra CO2, as long as they have the sunshine and water. There might even be a measurable difference in certain crops. I imagine that would be little consolation after losing major fisheries to the secondary effects of ocean acidification.
- kem 9y agoI'm speechless, but also habituating to that feeling. It's as if we reincarnated oil barons from the early 1900s and appointed them all to lead the government without telling them it was 2017.
- KirinDave 9y agoImperialism is timeless. The weirdest part of it all is how these folks are now on the sharp end of capitalism. They're rapidly being dismantled at a more local level by on-site generation, which simply needs less global infrastructure to meet demand. So now we have these folks with massive empires largely based on the promise of future capital, with heavily leveraged current holdings. They have incentive to act against efficiency and the market to preserve the investments they made. In any other scenario folks would probably say that they "deserve to lose".
- ZenoArrow 9y agoThe one glimmer of hope I have in all this is that emerging markets like China and India seem keen to push for green tech. I don't think capitalists of the type we're referring to will understand anything more clearly than losing money. We can't wait for them to accept the science, we should be pushing for the economic incentives to do the right thing to get better.
- teslabox 9y ago> The weirdest part of it all is how these folks are now on the sharp end of capitalism. They're rapidly being dismantled at a more local level by on-site generation, which simply needs less global infrastructure to meet demand. I wish the climate change alarmists could realize that 90% of what they're freaking out about is a non-problem. It'd just take a small amount of focused investment (cogeneration and AC time-shifting tech, etc) to make the energy industry obsolete.
- KirinDave 9y agoI think it's a very big problem for my descendants. This is something I am sensitive to as my parents and grandparents have left America in such a terrible state for me to inherit, and now resist any attempts to yield power. The energy industry is fighting against both economics and ecology to maintain dominance. It does so for lots of reasons. It has no right to exist.
- Karunamon 9y agoKind of an open question here. I am not a climatologist and neither are most people. Climate science is subtle and easy to misinterpret (and hence, spin) on the mater of anthropogenic climate change, or ACC. To the average person, myself included, the arguments made by both "sides" (ACC exists, ACC does not exist) are equally convincing. That is, both seem logical and well-argued at the superficial level we can understand without training. To the average person, myself included, both "sides" have a profit motive in fudging the numbers. (If ACC exists, the energy industry will fight because it ultimately harms their profits. If ACC doesn't exist, the academic lobby will fight for their prestige and grants) Both sides are, ultimately, dirty, due to politicization if nothing else. Both sides, ultimately, cannot be simultaneously correct. And so I ask: Who should be trusted, why, and how, given the limited number of hours in the day available to people who aren't directly involved in climatology as their day job? For bonus points, do any of the answers to those questions not boil down to the genetic or appeal to authority fallacies? (The snark below in response to a legitimate, good-faith question is leading me to believe this topic cannot be discussed among reasonable people)
- rayiner 9y ago> If ACC doesn't exist, the academic lobby will fight for their prestige ang grants It would be better for "the academic lobby" to peddle the idea that climate science is unsettled, which would create more of a need for grants to study the issue.
- joesb 9y agoCorrect. Academic's job is to study, it doesn't matter what the outcome is, they have grants either way.
- voice_of_reason 9y agoIt is not always true. Imagine the system, where the government is a primary source of grants. There is a possibility that government will prefer funding the scientists whose work supports government's political agenda.
- sova 9y agoNow, look over here! And not at Cancer study controversies!
- notadoc 9y agoMaybe they could launch a program to 'critique' cancer? Is cancer actually bad? Does anything actually cause it? Is it even real? Let's hear both sides of this debate.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIf they did the same for their health care proposals, tax cuts, increase in defense spending and other stuff I would be totally onboard.
- neves 9y agoThe worst legacy of Trump will be his denying of climate change. USA is the greatest polluter of the world. Their carbon output per capita is ten times greater than everybody. The country always stopped every tentative to slow climate change. Now with Trump they will accelerate it.
- rayiner 9y agoWe're not even in the top 10 once you take into account weather and GDP: http://grist.org/climate-change/some-like-it-hot-or-cold-how-weather-affects-carbon-emissions http://grist.org/climate-change/some-like-it-hot-or-cold-how....
- mac01021 9y agoWhat does it mean to take GDP into account?
- rayiner 9y agoIt measures CO2 production adjusted for total economic production and weather. I.e. it shows you which countries are the most inefficient vis-a-vis CO2 production, instead of just which countries are the richest or happen to have colder weather that requires more heating. China is a good example. It's not in the top 10 of CO2 emitters per capita, but only because it's still pretty poor. When you adjust for that, it jumps into the top 10, and the U.S. falls out of it. In other words, if you cut economic output by 1 unit in the U.S. (to lower CO2 production), and increase it by 1 unit in China, world total CO2 output will go up.
- orf 9y agoOf course, when you stop trying to massage the figures to make it seem more favourable it comes out with USA in #2, with 300 million people, and china in #1 with 1.3 billion. Your per-capita consumption is more than 4 times that of China, and for a long time you had the most emissions in the world. Your way of life isn't sustainable in more ways than just emissions. You have to accept that.
- notadoc 9y agoCan they launch a program to critique thermodynamics, gravity, planetary motion, and evolution too?
- pavlov 9y ago2020: the Red Team at NASA has some interesting new ideas about how prayer affects orbits. They should get their share of satellite launches to test these ideas so that we can understand the controversy better. Critique will make the other scientists work better, right?
- oh_sigh 9y agoDo you really see those things as having equivalent sureness of proof as climate change? I grok the things you listed quite well, and I've been following climate science as a hobbyist for years, and by comparison climate science is a mess compared to thermodynamics and even evolution. And I say this as a person who fully believes that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
- guelo 9y agoI honestly don't think this is going to be politically solvable without violence. If it comes down to civil war the evil billionaires will have more money for weapons. My prediction for the next couple centuries is an increasingly ruthless dictatorship controlled by a billionaire class trying to prevent revolt while civilization slowly collapses.
- spinchange 9y agoTalk about wasteful, frivolous, and counterproductive government... This is the politicization of settled science and at cross purposes with the agency's mission, but what else is new in 45's America?
- rdiddly 9y ago"A lie ain't a side of the story. It's just a lie." -- The Wire
- rdiddly 9y agoAnybody notice what the coal guy said? "Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all." So "clean coal" is BS just like I thought? Is this guy trying to shoot himself and Trump in the foot or what?
- nostrademons 9y agoThis effort is ultimately kind of laughable. Coal is going to collapse not because any global warming regulations, but because it is no longer cost competitive with natural gas, solar, or wind. And many jurisdictions have committed to upholding the Paris Accords with state & local laws. [1] It's a dying industry that will die out for the normal reasons - economic forces - regardless of what the federal government does. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Climate_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Climate_Alliance
- gpm 9y agoIt will still "benefit" plenty of other industries, such as oil, natural gas, etc
- francisofascii 9y agoSometimes I think too much focus is being put on climate change as the reason to reduce fossil fuel consumption, while all the other good reasons get less attention. The US economy has a dangerous dependence on finite resources. Its cheap availability and consumption has devastated country sides, caused pollution, wars, economic instability, disconnected societies, obesity, the list goes on.