The recent climate change hearing conducted by the House Science Committee was created by yelps of outrage from many corners of the media. The witnesses were all climate scientists, but only one, Michael Mann, was a firm believer in global warming. The hearing featured a lot of posturing and accusations of bad faith. However, according to the Washington Post, one useful proposal arose from the event. The idea is to select so-called “red teams” to challenge the conclusions by many in the scientific community that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and has to be dealt with by draconian measures.

Using the red team approach to testing climate change theory is based on the supposition that it is based more on groupthink and bias rather than on cold, scientific analysis. Having a fresh set of eyes examine the assumptions that reside behind global warming would seem to be useful, especially since the theory is being used to advance a great deal of public policy. One should be certain before embarking on a jihad on fossil fuel, with the attended misery and even death that would ensue.

The reaction of a spokesperson of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that lost a lot of credibility by opposing President Reagan’s eventual successful strategy to win the cold war, is telling.

Peter Frumhoff declared the idea of challenging the established wisdom of climate change to be “completely ridiculous,” noting that established bodies of “independent” scientists have already concluded, in effect, that the science is settled.

The attitude coming from a spokesperson for a political organization is likely based in part on ego.

It brings to mind the scene in “Hidden Figures” when a character played by Jim Parsons became irate that someone was being asked to check his math. If the global warming acolytes are so confident that the phenomenon is real, they will welcome having it confirmed by outsiders. However, the vehemence of the reaction to the red team idea would seem to indicate that the fear is that the “consensus” of climate change will be shown to be on shaky ground.