Would the "Red Team" Approach Be An Improvement Over Peer Review?

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test....

litesong wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test....

Wall Street Journal says science ain't science enough. Nah.... just the AGW denier liar whiner right wing, thinkin' they can politicalize science.

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Maybe I misread the article....

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Into the Night wrote:

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leakey plunger" puffed: Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

I think that would be a bad idea. It would just attract lawyers with their litigious fingers messing up productive debate. Lawyers have weaseled their way into enough areas of our life as it is.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.

Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.

"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plugged: Courts alread(sic) do this sort of judgemnt(sic) every single time they hear a case. faseability(sic).....sceice(sic)....

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.

Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.

I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.

Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.

I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

litesong wrote:

"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

"AGW denier liar whiner muffing frenziedmex" proves it is an AGW denier liar whiner, when it ASKS AGW denier liar whiners if AGW scientists lie.

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.

Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.

I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

Not often but when it does it is the most powerful of cons.

The example currently of NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice whilst it is clear with a tiny amount of maths that ice is accumulating on Greenland would be a start.

Surface Detail wrote:

Getting away with faking the moon landings has clearly gone to their heads. Moon rocks, schmoon rocks. We KNOW the moon is made of green cheese. Otherwise, what would the moon mice eat?????? TELL ME THAT!!!!!!

spot wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Getting away with faking the moon landings has clearly gone to their heads. Moon rocks, schmoon rocks. We KNOW the moon is made of green cheese. Otherwise, what would the moon mice eat?????? TELL ME THAT!!!!!!

Moon mice?

We have pictures



When did NASA know?

"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plugged: So litesong, you would have no problem with such a law then?

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that there have been eight separate inquiries into so-called "climategate", none of which found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

spot wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.

I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that there have been eight separate inquiries into so-called "climategate", none of which found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

What actually happened or not is irrelevant to the climate debate forum. All that matters is that an insinuation gets repeated hopefully people will start to believe it.

Could you imagine if people started doing something about climate change, we might accidentally get renewable energy and clean air and we can't have that.