Analysis & Opinions - The Boston Globe
The Perversity of the Climate Science Kangaroo Court
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is reportedly giving serious consideration to investing the taxpayers' money in a "red team-blue team" effort to determine whether current scientific understandings about climate change are actually right. The idea is that a "red team" made up of officials from government agencies with responsibilities related to climate would try to poke holes in mainstream climate science, while a similarly constituted "blue team" would have the task of defending the mainstream consensus against this critique. Supposedly, this process would shed new light on what is known and what is not about human influence on the global climate. But the argument that such a process would be helpful is some combination of naive and disingenuous....
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
Holdren, John P.“The Perversity of the Climate Science Kangaroo Court.” The Boston Globe, July 25, 2017.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- Woods Hole Research Center
Paris Withdrawal Would Be Closer To 'America Last' Than 'America First'
Analysis & Opinions
- The Guardian
Science's Role in Society is Threatened. Protest is the Right Response
Analysis & Opinions
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Comment on Trump Executive Actions on Climate Change, March 28, 2017
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is reportedly giving serious consideration to investing the taxpayers' money in a "red team-blue team" effort to determine whether current scientific understandings about climate change are actually right. The idea is that a "red team" made up of officials from government agencies with responsibilities related to climate would try to poke holes in mainstream climate science, while a similarly constituted "blue team" would have the task of defending the mainstream consensus against this critique. Supposedly, this process would shed new light on what is known and what is not about human influence on the global climate. But the argument that such a process would be helpful is some combination of naive and disingenuous....
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - Woods Hole Research Center
Paris Withdrawal Would Be Closer To 'America Last' Than 'America First'
Analysis & Opinions - The Guardian
Science's Role in Society is Threatened. Protest is the Right Response
Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Comment on Trump Executive Actions on Climate Change, March 28, 2017
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy


