Now that the Left isn’t running the show in Washington, is it actually possible that we could finally see some honest science in the climate change debate? Maybe. ➡ EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend Global Warming ‘Consensus’
 
Talking with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday ~

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming, (saying that he) supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an oped by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

 
Imagine that! A real debate ~

Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.

 
Of course the science settlers are dismissive of this common sense, straightforward approach ~

Consensus scientists say the red team setup could manipulate public understanding of the science, giving a false impression of uncertainty and delay action on global warming. Skeptics, like (climate scientist John) Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.
 
“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be — the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”
 
“In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.” […]
 
“Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding ‘climate change,’ and thus Red Teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.

 
“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” Christy told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Injecting honesty into the climate debate? Using the traditional scientific method? What an old-fashioned notion! Let’s try some! Here’s the incomparable Bill Whittle on Bill Nye; The Science Lie ~