From the opening paragraphs of that article:
"Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science.
He should do it now.
The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by
Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by
other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.
No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?"
--------------------
Now, I regard that opening as disingenuous. The answer to this proposal to form such a committee, is not as the article puts it at all. The answer offered by climate scientists is that there already exists a venue for such debate and discussion. It's called peer review, and the scientific debate takes place, and has done so for decades, in peer review publications. That is the case in all the sciences.
I would submit that the President and "climate denialists" are simply setting up a venue where they can use the pretext of such a committee to promote their fossil fuel industry agenda. So I find myself in the position of thinking "who do they think they're kidding?" As I recall, Scott Pruitt was hot for this idea. It really befuddles me when "climate denialists" accuse 97% of climate scientists as engaged in a political game, when the denialists are transparently political and clearly engaged in a non-scientific agenda and end run around the practice in all sciences for generations where research publication, discussion, debate, and emergence of consensus is concerned.
