That is a powerful statement. I hadn't heard about this proposal for red/blue teams to assess climate science. Thank you for drawing attention to this. Direct link for people on pump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/21/attention-scott-pruitt-red-te...
@cstanhope@identi.ca Indeed, this is a dangerous game. It hides a central fatal flaw. The red team/blue team approach requires a judge - an arbiter - someone who decides who is right, and who is wrong. In this case, it is Pruitt, who is not well-educated enough in critical thinking to know which team is making a data-driven argument and which is blowing hot air loudly enough to sound convincing.
This is why it is ludicrous in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of one conclusion to pretend there are still two explanations and ask two groups to argue each. It gives false weight to the bad idea ,and presumes the arbiter cannot be fooled.
Such a rookie move.