NY Times Seems Pretty Upset That EPA Would Allow People With Other Views To Present Them

Science in Liberal World is like everything else in Liberal World: one view allowed, no dissension allowed, Wrongthink must be shut down

E.P.A. to Give Dissenters a Voice on Climate, No Matter the Consensus

Once you’ve mentioned consensus, you’ve admitted this is not about science, but politics.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, plans to convene a team of researchers to test the scientific premise of human-caused climate change, he told coal industry executives on Thursday.

Speaking at a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group for coal companies and their industry allies, Mr. Pruitt said his staff had already begun preparations for a “red team-blue team” exercise to challenge mainstream climate science, according to two people who attended the meeting but were not authorized to speak about it publicly.

What’s the problem? Allowing different views sounds like good science, right? Oh, no, not in Warmist World

The initiative, first reported by E&E News, is the latest in a series of moves at the E.P.A. that critics say is undermining the role of academic research at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health.

In other words, people who get a lot of research money in academia are upset that their highly partisan, cultish research might be undermined by actual science. They do not like that the different teams would provide and debate. They’re very concerned with the debate part

Many mainstream climate scientists say the proposal would make a mockery of scientific research, which already relies on an extensive process of peer review to weed out flawed analyses.

Those scientists worry that Mr. Pruitt’s exercise will not be conducted in good faith, and will only create a platform for marginal views that have already been disproved in the normal course of scientific debate.

And this is the problem in a nutshell for Warmists: they would have to actually prove their hypotheses and findings in a public forum against scientists who disagree. They’ve gotten used to being the only fish in the pond, and not truly having to prove what they say.

“The key will be to see who they get to staff the teams,” Dr. Dessler said. “I can’t imagine mainstream scientists rushing to sign up for a process which is clearly a waste of time. My guess is that, in the end, many of the participants will have dubious credentials.”

That is the key: will Warmist scientists be willing to debate and defend their Beliefs on anthropogenic climate change? For the most part, they have been unwilling to do so in a public forum. Most of the big time leading Warmists have been unwilling to debate. Because, on the few occasions they do, they lose badly.

The article is essentially saying that “the science is settled”, and no one should be allowed to debate. Why are Warmists so scared to put debate and defend?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!