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.

(By the way, here's a great breakdown of just why the red team, blue team approach is not what the U.S. needs to be doing right now.)

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 the red states to make the right decision if it comes to that. 

Even though 97 percent of peer-reviewed, published climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is currently occurring, climate deniers like Rick Perry and Scott Pruitt cherry pick the 3 percent that don't and use that as proof that "the science isn't settled;" the very tactic tobacco companies used to sow discord in the link between cigarettes and cancer.

Science, by its very nature, is never absolutely settled. And that's what makes it so great! If we let our knowledge stagnate, then it would be that much harder to make new discoveries. But that isn't the case when it comes to the facts behind climate change. Where we're at now, "the science isn't settled" does nothing but distract from the fact that it's settled enough to act.

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.