U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry had two opportunities on ポルノ映画館 19歳Tuesday to elaborate on his views about climate science, which have been thrown in doubt lately after congressional testimony.

Is he, like Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt, an avowed climate change denier? Or is he a more middle-of-the-road figure when it comes to his stance on whether human-caused global warming is occurring? Of course, no matter what Perry believes, scientists have concluded that climate change is, indeed, human-caused, and is a serious existential threat.

Turns out, Perry stands right by Pruitt's side on this issue, favoring an unscientific "red team/blue team" debate on climate science, and blasting the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as a multibillion dollar giveaway of funds to foreign countries.

In an appearance in the White House briefing room on Tuesday, as part of the administration's "Energy Week," Perry was repeatedly asked to clarify his views on climate science.

At first, he seemed to say that the debate is regarding what to do about human-caused global warming, not whether it's happening or not.

When asked if he believes that "Climate change is happening and that human activity has made it worse," Perry said:

"The climate is changing. Man is having an impact on it. I've said it time after time after time."

Perry then cited a recent Wall Street Journalop-ed by Steven Koonin (whom he called "Kooniz"), a professor at New York University, who recently called for a public climate science debate to challenge the mainstream scientific judgement on human-caused global warming.

Koonin's view, which Perry endorsed, is that a "red team" would challenge consensus findings from scientific reports, and a "blue team" would have the opportunity to respond. This is similar to how the military games out certain scenarios and spacecraft engineers test critical systems or investigate accidents, but it's not how science works.

Perry and Pruitt aren't thinking of some magical new idea that scientists haven't considered before. In fact, peer review -- the process by which studies are reviewed by experts before publication -- is basically its own "red team," and every major climate assessment has already been through it.

"The people who say the science is settled. It's done. If you don't believe that you're a skeptic, a luddite. I don't buy that," Perry said.

"This is America. Have a conversation. Come out of the shadows of hiding behind, you know, your political statements and let's talk about it. What's wrong with that?" Perry asked.

"I can be convinced, but why not let's talk about it?"

Later on during the briefing, members of the press sought again to ascertain what Perry thinks about climate change, and this time he made clear that he questions the existence and severity of human-caused global warming.

This puts him out of step with the vast majority of climate science produced by his own agency.

A reporter asked Perry if it's "resolved" that humans have affected climate change, and the debate is only about what is to be done about the problem.

That didn't sit well with Perry, who said [emphasis added]:

"Climate's changing, always has, man at this particular point in time is having an effect on it. How much effect is what's at debate here.And, more importantly, what is the United States going to do to affect that?"

"Can we agree that we ought to have a conversation as a people, intellectually engaged, not screaming, standing up in the middle of my speeches saying 'you're a climate denier,' when the fact is I just want to have a conversation about this?" Perry said.

"When you have a scientist like Steve Kooniz [Koonin] that stands up and says the science isn't settled yet, I tend to say ok, well let's have a conversation and get these guys together."

It's probably important to note that Koonin is a physicist who served under former president Barack Obama and former chief scientist for BP, an international oil and gas giant.

The trouble with red teams

Three high-profile climate science experts recently debunked the red team/blue team concept for climate science in an op-ed in the Washington Post'sCapital Weather Gang blog.

These researchers, including Benjamin Santer of the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, see the idea for what it is: An attempt to put climate deniers on par with mainstream researchers, and elevate views that have been shot down again and again in the scientific literature.

"Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science," they wrote.

Yes, it's true that claims that "the science is settled" sound suspicious to many people. It's also true that calls for a reasonable debate by reasonable-sounding people like Rick Perry may be tempting.

But with the red/blue team idea, Perry and Pruitt are trying to drive a dagger into the heart of the scientific process, which rests on impartial peer review, and the constant testing of hypotheses. This comes at the same time Pruitt is dismantling science advisory panels at the EPA, and Perry is shuttering climate offices at his agency.

Perhaps the Energy Secretary should spend more of his time learning about the climate science produced by his own agency than teaming up with Pruitt to host some sort of grand climate debate.

After all, we know how Perry himself performed in debates ("Oops!").