Of Red Teams and Blue Teams
September 22nd, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In Saturday’s New York Times, Thomas Homer-Dixon and David Keith had an op-ed on geoengineering. which had this interesting passage:
Navigating the worst could involve what scientists call geo-engineering — the intentional modification of the earth’s climate. Unfortunately, although specialist circles and blogs are alive with heated conversations about geo-engineering, the idea is so taboo that governments have provided virtually no research money. Most of these conversations focus on the idea of injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere to screen out the sun’s radiation, as happens when volcanoes erupt. Also, most of the limited scientific research on geo-engineering has aimed to show why sulfate injections won’t work — like why they might damage the ozone layer or produce too much cooling and drying in places where we don’t want these changes.
Yes, it’s vital to have this “red team” of skeptics questioning geo-engineering. But we need more emphasis on a “blue team” to figure out what geo-engineering approaches might work, because we might need to move fast.
Why, we might ask, is it necessary to have such “red” and “blue” teams? Why can’t we just call people names — “Strangelovian Earth Destroyers” or “Neo-Con Earth Controllers” — and put them into nice neat political camps, so we don’t have to listen to their arguments? It worked against the adaptation advocates, and also those folks suggesting we need new technological innovation. Why not here? After all such debates can only get in the way of the obvious, desirable outcome, can’t they?
Red team and blue team. How silly.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Red team and blue team. How silly.”
Well, it’s certainly not very enlightening.
The “Red Team” are the “skeptics questioning geo-engineering.” And the “Blue Team” are the people who are “trying to figure out what approaches might work, because we might need to move fast.”
For one thing, it’s not at all clear why a person couldn’t be on both teams…i.e., a skeptic questioning geo-engineering, but at the same time trying to figure out what approaches might work.
And then there’s the problem that “Red” and “Blue” are typically associated with “Republican” and “Democrat.”
So I don’t know if it’s “silly,” but it sure doesn’t clear up anything. Calling them “Team X,” and “Team Y” would at least eliminate a potential confusion with political party affiliation.
But it would be better to simply eliminate any idea that there are two “teams.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
I think we also need to keep continuity on name calling. Please consult with the appropriate name assigning authority to determine whether the “Strangelovian Earth Destroyers” or “Neo-Con Earth Controllers” are the “delayers and deniers”? And by the way, are the Strangelovian Earth Destroyers for or against injecting the sulfate aerosols as a remedy to injecting too much CO2?
What about the people who want to build coal fired power plants and pump the CO2 into the geologic formations? Can we call them the yellow team? Then if they join with the blue team, the result would be the “green coalition”!
September 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Roger just look up red team on wiki and you’ll understand the origin of the term
red team/ blue team. It goes beyond mere “peer review” It’s a review that is adversarial. One way to look at is this. Does truth come out from a process of building a consensus of counting heads, or is it a battle where the best idea wins.
Read the section on the US Army. Being on the red team is a fun gig.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Silly? Adversarial? Maybe, maybe. But as the polymathic Judge Holden memorably said:
“All other trades are contained in that art of war. Is that why war endures? No. It endures because young men love it, and old men love it in them. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have any meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals that define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth, all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence.”
Each will have his personal rocket. Isn’t that right, Mr. Mosher?