Currently watching Dept of Energy Secretary Rick "Dancing with the Stars" Perry present on "American Energy DOMINANCE" at the White House press briefing. It is a complete assault on science and reason and, for the lack of a better term, utter bullshit.
I assume this will get a lot of commentary within the climate science community (heads are likely exploding as we speak). I'd encourage you to watch a replay if you can.
While simultaneously declaring the the "science isn't settled" and denigrating scientists, he is inviting a debate and dialogue. Surely there will be many ready to accept this challenge.
Other themes are a new focus on nuclear power and what appears to be a massive expansion of fossil fuels, especially our good friend coal. He is also making references to clean energy, which while welcome, appears to be more a deflection and attempt to distract from what is really a fossil fuel centric strategy.
Ironically, this is likely to create energy on climate change and fuel the resistance even more.
Following up on the press event with this summary article -
Rick Perry wants to hold a dangerous, totally BS debate on global warming
http://mashable.com/2017/06/27/rick-perry-climate-comments-red-team-debate/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link#Dy0g2N3FRqqKPerry then cited a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steven Koonin (whom he called "Kooniz"), a professor at New York University, who recently called for a public climate science debate to challenge the mainstream scientific judgement on human-caused global warming.
Koonin's view, which Perry endorsed, is that a "red team" would challenge consensus findings from scientific reports, and a "blue team" would have the opportunity to respond. This is similar to how the military games out certain scenarios and spacecraft engineers test critical systems or investigate accidents, but it's not how science works.
Perry and Pruitt aren't thinking of some magical new idea that scientists haven't considered before. In fact, peer review — the process by which studies are reviewed by experts before publication — is basically its own "red team," and every major climate assessment has already been through it.
"The people who say the science is settled. It's done. If you don't believe that you're a skeptic, a luddite. I don't buy that," Perry said.
"This is America. Have a conversation. Come out of the shadows of hiding behind, you know, your political statements and let's talk about it. What's wrong with that?" Perry asked.
"I can be convinced, but why not let's talk about it?"
-----
These researchers, including Benjamin Santer of the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, see the idea for what it is: An attempt to put climate deniers on par with mainstream researchers, and elevate views that have been shot down again and again in the scientific literature.
"Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science," they wrote.
Yes, it's true that claims that "the science is settled" sound suspicious to many people. It's also true that calls for a reasonable debate by reasonable-sounding people like Rick Perry may be tempting.
But with the red/blue team idea, Perry and Pruitt are trying to drive a dagger into the heart of the scientific process, which rests on impartial peer review, and the constant testing of hypotheses. This comes at the same time Pruitt is dismantling science advisory panels at the EPA, and Perry is shuttering climate offices at his agency.