4 ms·

Honestly if you cut through all the political BS it's actually a quite reasonable approach: > James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ord

Honestly if you cut through all the political BS it's actually a quite reasonable approach: > James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century > “The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,” > a physicist at New York University, proposed that a “red team” of dissenting scientists be established to critique major scientific reports on climate change. A “blue team” of climate scientists would then rebut the criticisms, and the resulting back-and-forth would unfold in public view. > “They’ve started talking about how they can produce a report that doesn’t lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future,” > A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the “worst-case scenarios” of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution Basically - reduce the outlook of the models for more accuracy, and put together two opposing teams to challenge each others' outcomes. Isn't this what science is all about, rather than one side declaring they're totally correct and infallible?

tzs 7y ago
> Basically - reduce the outlook of the models for more accuracy, and put together two opposing teams to challenge each others' outcomes. Isn't this what science is all about, rather than one side declaring they're totally correct and infallible? The outcomes are already challenged, in public view, in papers in peer reviewed journals and conferences. The "red team" here is more like putting together a team of homeopaths and faith healers and making the FDA debate them on drug regulation. The "red team" is just to provide the illusion that the administration is deciding policy based on science instead of having already decided based on what is best for the short term profits of the coal industry and other major contributors to climate change. Same for the reduction in model outlook. Yes, models are less accurate over time, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful farther out. It just means you have a bigger uncertainty. But if all the outcomes within the range of uncertainly are bad, then you've got a problem. They want to limit it to 2040 because up to 2040 most of the models say nothing too bad will have yet happened even if we continue increasing greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, etc., at the current pace. But the models pretty much all agree that if we do that, it will be very bad afterwards, and they say that even if you take an optimistic view of the uncertainty due to projecting that far forward. As for this being political BS, and your earlier comment that this was a partisan hit piece that you deleted while I was typing a response, no, it is not a partisan hit piece. If Democrats were rolling back current efforts to address climate change, without offering alternative methods to replace them, and instead trying to undermine scientific inquiry into the problem, then the Times would be writing stories like this about them, too.

tzs 7y ago

> Basically - reduce the outlook of the models for more accuracy, and put together two opposing teams to challenge each others' outcomes. Isn't this what science is all about, rather than one side declaring they're totally correct and infallible? The outcomes are already challenged, in public view, in papers in peer reviewed journals and conferences. The "red team" here is more like putting together a team of homeopaths and faith healers and making the FDA debate them on drug regulation. The "red team" is just to provide the illusion that the administration is deciding policy based on science instead of having already decided based on what is best for the short term profits of the coal industry and other major contributors to climate change. Same for the reduction in model outlook. Yes, models are less accurate over time, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful farther out. It just means you have a bigger uncertainty. But if all the outcomes within the range of uncertainly are bad, then you've got a problem. They want to limit it to 2040 because up to 2040 most of the models say nothing too bad will have yet happened even if we continue increasing greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, etc., at the current pace. But the models pretty much all agree that if we do that, it will be very bad afterwards, and they say that even if you take an optimistic view of the uncertainty due to projecting that far forward. As for this being political BS, and your earlier comment that this was a partisan hit piece that you deleted while I was typing a response, no, it is not a partisan hit piece. If Democrats were rolling back current efforts to address climate change, without offering alternative methods to replace them, and instead trying to undermine scientific inquiry into the problem, then the Times would be writing stories like this about them, too.