EPA’s Pruitt: Establish ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ of scientists to examine climate risk of CO2

Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.

EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2. The American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”

Finally it looks like we are going to have some honest debate on this subject.

About time. The citizens will finally understand that the science is far from settled, that the population has been subjected to the largest psychological operation ever perpetrated against it's citizens.

This is good, an open forum on findings of individual teams.

This is like the Council of Nicea for Climate change.

This should have happened 20 years ago.

will "deniers" be jailed?

a reply to: D8Tee
It will be a detailed analysis of peer reviewed literature. That leaves a massive question about all the entirely legitimate papers that were never allowed to see the light of day, but there will be an army of real scientists to provide rebuttal for the garbage published by the Alarmist side.
I'm not getting tired of winning yet.

The Alarmist Consortium will do all they can to put the discussions "On Ice".

Watch for more phony "reports" coming from no-wheres-ville.

a reply to: D8Tee

This is great news.

The money spent in previous administration
Was mind boggling. Most all of it was kept
away from public eye.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Alarmist Consortium will do all they can to put the discussions "On Ice".

Watch for more phony "reports" coming from no-wheres-ville.

Yea, they will call it the green team vs. the grayish soot-covered team.

I love this red/blue concept though. For once in a long while someone in our government is pushing for scientific debate with all sides equally heard. It's kind of an anti-DC thing to do. There will be many salivating with strategies on how to make their side look better in the MSM.

Just tell me where to send the "air Tax" so you don't have to work.

Over 50% in taxes isn't enough, I want nothing, take it all and tell me you love me.


Plant a tree and move on.

a reply to: Mandroid7
If it’s done right it is exactly the right idea! We ( the deniers) have no fear of the science! It just needs scientists of unimpeachable credibility to write the conclusory reports and poke the IPCC and U.N> in the eye with a sharp stick!

This is a great move to dispel the lies and propaganda that there is a consensus. An independent effort, hopefully free from grant renewals and profit objectives, can lay out to the people the real science and a proper route forward can be planned which does not involve religious Climate change beliefs and huge taxes to redistribute wealth.

originally posted by: bluesjr

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Alarmist Consortium will do all they can to put the discussions "On Ice".

Watch for more phony "reports" coming from no-wheres-ville.

Yea, they will call it the green team vs. the grayish soot-covered team.

I love this red/blue concept though. For once in a long while someone in our government is pushing for scientific debate with all sides equally heard. It's kind of an anti-DC thing to do. There will be many salivating with strategies on how to make their side look better in the MSM.

Yes, a fair and equally represented debate is going to upset the Climate Priests but it is long long overdue.

Wow... are we seeing a government official do something in a transparent manner...

Gotta be an angle I aint seeing yet..

Kudos for now.

a reply to: D8Tee

This is how it's done!

It finally feels like our government is working for us...trying to, at least...and communicating with us!

a reply to: D8Tee

Fossil fuel usage USA

Air Quality USA


The USA is already leading the way.
I posted this in another thread but it's worth repeating.

The Chinese understand the art of the deal.

US negotiator: We want you to make the same costly change we are making.
Chinese negotiator: We won’t make the change unless you pay us first.
US negotiator: Make the change and we will pay you.
Chinese negotiator: You are the one wanting the change, pay first and we will change
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change
US negotiator: When?
Chinese negotiator: We never agreed when, only to make change.
US negotiator: We need change by 2020
Chinese negotiator: That will cost extra
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change 2020
2020:
US negotiator: Where is change?
Chinese negotiator: We made change
US negotiator: Nothing has changed
Chinese negotiator: We replaced old with new
US negotiator: New has same problem.
Chinese negotiator: Money was to fix old, not fix new
US negotiator: We want you to make the same costly change to new as well.
Chinese negotiator: We won’t make the change unless you pay us first.
US negotiator: Make the change and we will pay you.
Chinese negotiator: You are the one wanting the change, pay first and we will change
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change

Yeah, I posted without watching video. Sounds like some good points in it.

I just don't understand why co2 would be the forefront of the environmental problems.

We are being poisoned by our tap water. Our poo is literally recycled back to us for a profit, full of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, herbicides, metals, cancer chemicals etc...

The rest is flushed down the rivers to create a giant dead zone in the gulf.

Big AG and water quality needs to be handled before a scheme to take tax payers dollars for excess plant food(co2) in the air is addressed imo.


And a little definition of what level of PPM is bad would be nice.

I hear screaming that it is above 400 ppm, but plants grow in greenhouses up to 50% faster with up to 1500 ppm of co2 concentration.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I just don't understand why co2 would be the forefront of the environmental problems.

Carbon tax would be the biggest shift of wealth from the poor to the rich this world has ever seen. The UN would gain control of nations energy policies. The Green climate slush fund would be lent out at interest to develop infrastructure for third world nations, including fossil fuel burning electrical generation. The multinationals move in behind that infrastructure, exploit the local workforce and rape the resources. It's a grand scheme for the elites.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Mandroid7
If it’s done right it is exactly the right idea! We ( the deniers) have no fear of the science! It just needs scientists of unimpeachable credibility to write the conclusory reports and poke the IPCC and U.N> in the eye with a sharp stick!

Y'all sure seem to fear the physics:


Yes, it's that dreaded chart again that nobody can counter: long-established fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

This is obviously just a sham to create doubt and delay any action whatsoever.

There is not a shred of legitimate doubt that our climate is in turmoil. Whether CO2 is the biggest part of that I don't know, but I'm sure it doesn't help.

a reply to: Greven
Since the start of the 21’st century, the average temperature of the planet has remaining relatively constant, except for short term variability due to natural cycles like the PDO.

You really think it's so simple as the Steffan Boltzmann law?

People with PhD's are debating this, but until now, only one side has been allowed to speak.
Soon we will get to hear both sides.

link

It’s not quite straightforward, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body with a single surface for all wavelengths, whereas the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) comes from multiple emission layer

Link

The results of this analysis explains the source of climate science skepticism, which is that IPCC driven climate science has no answer to the following question:

What law(s) of physics can explain how to override the requirements of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as it applies to the sensitivity of matter absorbing and emitting energy, while also explaining why the data shows a nearly exact conformance to this law?