Day one was wet, torrentially so in the morning but merely a bit of rain by The Time. The Red Team went off well, the Yellow team were a shadow of last year's glory, and the Pale Blue team went down to the Minty Blue team who put in an impressively powerful display - a joy to watch. Unbeknownst to me the Purple Team pulled a blinder and got the Yellow team not far from the finish - unprecedented in living memory that far up -, setting up an exciting situation for day two. Which was similarly wet. The Purple team surprised no-one by going all out off the start but the Red team proved strong manly and unflappable, with the Purples fading and caught by another burst of raw power from Minty Blue; the Yellows fell further out of our range of interest. Day three, now sunny, was inevitable, though I won a fiver on it: the Minty Blues took down the Reds with more raw power and quality, and the Purples had nowhere to go. Day four saw the Minties well clear, the Purples as expected closed the Reds off the start whilst I looked elsewhere - at the deeper Blues and the deeper Purples and the still deeper Blues. And yet, there it was, just before the finish: the Reds down to the Purples.
An allegory for our times, no doubt.Meanwhile, we return you to our traditional "Red team" cartoon, because this nonsense is coming round again. Really, all I'm going to do is link to Gavin's post We watch long YouTube videos so you don’t have to, in response to some bloke called Steven "Steve" Koonin. But really, the Blue team have already won, which is why no-one dares to set up a Red team, since they're fully aware that it would be an embarrassing failure, as I said in February.
Refs
* The full playlist is here, but there's a lot in that, so you may prefer just day one, day two, day three and day four.
* Digital legibility and incentives towards moral behaviors - TF
* NSC'S JOHN BOLTON OFFERS NEW RED TEAM RATIONALE
* Poke out one of my eyes by Scott Sumner
* Trump White House shelves ‘adversarial’ review of climate science via RS
12 comments:
On the old marketing principle (well, old wive's tale) that nothing destroys a bad product faster than good marketing, I should think you'd be a strong advocate of a Red Team examination of some elements of the climate discussion.
If they really are idiots, this would expose them.
As I said before Could the idea actually be of any use? In the present context, I think that’s doubtful... They would fail to do anything of scientific use, and that failure might ultimately be revealing, and therefore good. But in the meantime they get a platform to spout nonsense. Ah well, these are difficult times, you cannot expect to choose amongst different good outcomes. Not strong support, but not a total dismissal either.
Tom, it's been tried .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/red-teamblue-team-day-1/
Well, as with so many things in the real world, a Red Team exercise's utility would depend on its execution. Which would largely depend on the number, quality and level of engagement of the participants.
Could be good, could be a joke.
Tom, BEST was a Red Team exercise which concluded that all the standard northern hemisphere temperature products were good enough.
Isn't that enough?
I was under the impression that the fossil fuel industry has been funding the largest ever Red Team for the longest ever duration in scientific history.
Mr. Benson,
Do you recall what was written about BEST by the climate community prior to the release of their findngs? It was every bit as biased and nauseating as what was written by the skeptic community afterwards.
My good friend and co-author Steve Mosher participated in parts of the BEST exercise. They worked really hard on it. For which they were called deniers beforehand and shills of the Green Monster after.
Sometimes being a lukewarmer is tough. Sometimes it is quite rewarding.
> about BEST by the climate community prior to the release of their findngs?
{{cn}}
I gave Muller grief for what I think were good reasons; see Muller is rubbish. But after it came out I was happy to admit that BEST is boring.
Do you see anything there to object to?
No, I'll just add that the research team knew going in what they were likely to get and were not at all surprised by what came out of it. Sometimes boring is good.
Muller, politically speaking, needed to do something to regain standing with elements of the climate community (esp. at U Cal Berkeley) after his dissection of Michael Mann.
This was something.
As I implied, BEST was a waste of effort.
To go completely off-topic, is Boris Johnson a tosser?
I'm glad you asked... yes, Boris Johnson is a tosser.
Hey, we are talking about the next Prime Minister..... and, if his tenure is for any length of time, the worst and the last PM of the United Kingdom.
Post a Comment