US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have been making some headlines for publicly rejecting the conclusions of climate science. But in between wrongly claiming that climate scientists just don’t know how much of a contribution humans make to recent global warming (answer: roughly 100 percent), they have also been parroting a new line—that climate science needs a “red team” to take on the scientific consensus.

On Friday, E&E News reported that these aren’t empty words. The EPA intends to “organize a specific process in which these individuals... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," according to an administration official.

The “red team” concept refers to exercises in which one team is formed with the goal of shooting down the blue team’s conclusions or pursuing off-the-wall ideas. Since people like Scott Pruitt assert that the cause of climate change is fundamentally unknown, they argue that it would be perfectly reasonable to gather up some scientists who think humans are the cause together with some who disagree and let them duke it out.

Of course, that’s not really a reasonable way to discover how evidence built a consensus in a field (a simple search of Google Scholar would be more helpful), and it’s not the way science works. Thousands of scientists around the world are constantly carrying out studies on climate change and submitting their results to be reviewed for flaws by other researchers before things are published in scientific journals. Other researchers can then test similar hypotheses with studies of their own.

Climate “red teams” have been coming up in Senate and House committee hearings, where they're often suggested by scientists from a small contrarian group. Since their opinions haven't gotten the sort of evidentiary support that would give them traction in the scientific community, they argue for the use of red teams that would elevate their views regardless. If the EPA does put together a red team, it is extremely likely that it would be made up of these same people.

E&E News also reports that coal executive Robert Murray (the same Robert Murray who recently sued HBO host John Oliver) hopes the effort will ultimately result in the EPA overturning the “endangerment finding” that gives the agency a mandate to regulate carbon dioxide. However, Pruitt has reportedly pumped the brakes on this idea in the past, which is a tall task given the legal and scientific hurdles.

An EPA spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for information on its plans.