The End of Peer Reviewed Climate Science
In a stunning development, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has once again announced an initiative that seems completely contrary to the mission of his own agency.
As reported by Emily Holden in E&E News, Pruitt is launching a program to critique mainstream (read: sensible) climate science using a “back-and-forth critique by government-recruited experts.” The senior administration official quoted in Holden’s article then goes on to spout that he or she is “very excited about this initiative.”
"Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing,” the official continued as they hopelessly ran out of straws to grasp. “A new, fresh and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing."
It sounds nice, right? Discussion is what science is all about! Of course, it’s never that simple.
“A new, fresh and transparent evaluation” in un-Trumpian terms means that Pruitt has finally confirmed that he’s moving away from the centuries-proven peer review method in favor of recruiting yes men who will say whatever he needs to hear to advance his anti-EPA agenda. Climate scientists in Holden’s article rightfully expressed concern at this “red team, blue team” approach, worrying that it would politicize climate debate by disproportionately elevating the views of “scientists” who prioritize funding over facts.
What’s worse, according to Holden, coal executives are interpreting this move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the EPA’s legal arm in enacting and enforcing federal greenhouse gas regulations; leaving our nation's air and water quality up to state governments. And I don't know about you, but I'm not placing any faith in coal-controlled Appalachia to make the right decision if it comes to that.
Letting climate deniers like Scott Pruitt choose what voices will determine our nation's environmental policy is a path back to the glory days of flaming rivers and smoggy skies.
That's not to say I disagree with both sides of the climate debate being heard! As long as it’s a mathematically representative debate like this one featured on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.
