Comments on: Climate Science Policy Needs a “Team B” (Big Science + Big Government = Bad Science & Policy)

By: Cooler Heads Digest 21 May 2010 | GlobalWarming.org

Cooler Heads Digest 21 May 2010 | GlobalWarming.org — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:39:06 +0000

[...] Climate Policy Needs a Team “B” David Schnare, MasterResource.org, 18 May 2010 [...]

By: David Schnare

David Schnare — Wed, 19 May 2010 13:13:57 +0000

Transparency and broad participation have always been the keystone to uncovering biases, whether intentional or not. A Team B approach that accesses the considerable participation of those who post on the internet should not be ignored. Bringing one hundred bright minds to a task will ensure biases to the front, even those held by a Team B member. The challenge is to find an honest Team B who will be willing to admit to their own past mistakes, errors or ignorance.

By: Tony Price

Tony Price — Wed, 19 May 2010 10:52:29 +0000

An excellent analysis. The current “peer review” process is fundamentally flawed; it often (too often) amounts to little more than colleagues or like-minded “experts” giving the authors a “pat on the back”. The “cross-review” (A reviews B, B reviews A) evident in the IPCC AR4 is staggering. The sceptical “Team B” approach has great merit, and would be a structured formalisation of what has traditionally though entirely informally happened in the past, yet seemingly been entirely abandoned in mainstream climate science. Scepticism is the life-blood of science; without it science will degrade into a lifeless regime of mutual back-slapping and consensus.

Blogs do a great job, but carry no authoritative weight in the scientific world. I’m a true sceptic in the real sense of the word, and blogs give me (an enthusiastic amateur) the opportunity to read, learn, discuss, question and sometimes even contribute a little.

Long live internet blogging, and thanks for a great and thought-provoking article.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:59:58 +0000

The current assessments suffer from the fatal flaw that Roger Pielke Senior has frequently brought up-the authors of the assessments review areas related to their own work, and rely heavily on their own papers, giving them prominence to promote their narrow view points. What can be done to prevent the incestuous problem of scientists reviewing their own work in these assessments? One can imagine that we could just end up with assessments from each “team” which just skew to their own viewpoints the way the current assessments do.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Tue, 18 May 2010 16:02:44 +0000

Well reasoned and logical. I share the same concerns about the Red Team being co-opted by the system, most organizations tend, over time to drift into the orbit of the conventional wisdom. And being funded by Congress makes that result more likely. I just don’t see how you can get around those problems if the Red Teams are government funded or sponsored. Maybe the best alternative would be for the various professional societies and trade organizations to sponsor these groups. Yes, I know that an energy center of analysis sponsored by the API, as an example, would likely be derided by some, but I think that these organizations could structure groups in such a way as to make them nearly independent. For example, an industry association could endow a group with say $10,000,000 and write a clearly defined mission statement. Appoint a panel of recognized experts and charge them with staffing and subject matter review. And to keep costs low, these organizations could be virtual. I don’t doubt that there are hundreds of semi-retired people who would jump at the chance to be part of such a community.

My own personal preference is that the government create a Department of Unintended Consequences, similar to the GAO. This department’s sole mission would be to opine on proposed legislation and highlight potential land mines.

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:29:21 +0000

What a beautifully written, logically compelling article. Thanks. I’m grateful for the wonderful story from Dirkson and the concept of Johnny and his slate pads, although I’ve used evidently the same boy in various Emperor’s New Clothes scenarios.

“Independent” peer review that works hard to “disprove” a particular thesis, particularly one fraught with significant public expense and environmental risk, should be mandatory. NEPA does indeed require something like this. And, of course, the National Academy of Science has also been called upon frequently to perform this function.

However, given the collusive potential of our mass media, and the power of the Internet, I despair for the proper use of this important tool. At the micro level of a state regulatory agency, where the Department of Natural Resources employed an “independent” Power Plant Research Program to conduct a thorough energy/socio-economic/environmental impact review, the process was a sham in Maryland. The experts often tailored their comments to suit the dictates of their political bosses and, when forced to tell the truth when cross examined under oath, their negative comments were simply elided in the final DNR report.

If this kind of political pervasion can take place at the state level, it certainly will easily overtake policy inquiries at the federal level, as it already has. No one should have any confidence in the “science” presented by Congress or any Administration, for it’s used pervasively to sell soap, not truth. And virtually everyone knows it.

Until we can elect better political leadership and inculcate knowledge of the scientific method (that is, the principles of skeptical inquiry) throughout our citizenry, modern societies will continue to be bilked by scientific poseurs employed by various good intentions paving companies.