I concur with the author and the contributors to the debate who feel that a scientific methodology closer to that described by Lakatos could only be regarded as a good thing. So could world peace. But like world peace, it seems unlikely.

Eyejaw, I think Jedimaster was trying to get at the point that Prof. Ridd was being somewhat hyperbolic in his article, as Sarah Palin does every time she opens her vile conservative mouth to spew forth abject nonsense.

Jedimaster, the comparison was unfair - all of us can be hyperbolic at times. Prof. Ridd couldn't possibly hope to hold a candle to Sarah's hyperbole, even if he trained for the rest of his life under an wizened old Tibetan Master skilled in the ways of hyperbole.

There is a bit of a thin line that we're treading here. I was referring to Ridd's alluding to police corruption and scientific woes in the same para. Although I can see the analogy, I still think that we need to take a bit of care with our words. I was a bit worried by the "denialist" tag, because of its (possible)connotations, but GrahamY seems to think that we've gone beyond that, and I agree.

I take the view that "-ists" and "-isms" denote people whse "mind is made up" and are not amenable to the processes of reason, empiricism and dialectic, be it Lakatosian, Popperian or Kuhnian. The nearest to an "-ist" that I can tolerate is an optimist. I think that we are hard wired for that. The others are optional.

Who is GrahamY when he's at home?

I take the view that -ists, -isms and -ians simply make for a convenient way to put the things in the shell of a nut - using a little to say a lot, but inevitably losing much of the fine detail in the process. Less is usually more, and when you're limited to a mere 350 words conciseness and brevity matter a great deal.

Is not empiricism to be found among the "-isms"? 

Peter Ridd's assertion that something needs to be done about the malpractice of science in the AGW area seems too obvious to be queried. The method needs to be discussed, but he should not be expected to come up with the answer.

One avenue which may be open at the moment, to those wishing for honest science, is an approach to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

False reports by, for instance, the CSIRO, in relation to climate, which can be shown to be contrary to the data which they have, could warrant investigation to ascertain how the organization was corruptly subverted to produce the material.

If a situation parallel to the obviously corrupt Met Office in UK, where the winter was publicly predicted to be mild, and surreptitiously, to the government, predicted to be severe, then a referral to ICAC would be appropriate.

Whatever may be said about the Law, the system of taking evidence has the effect of exposing untruths. ICAC has powers similar to those of a Royal Commission.

When the Australian Conservation Foundation, or whatever they call themselves, took action to block XStrata in a coal mining project because of an alleged effect on global warming, their main witness was the Director, Dr. Ian Lowe. It was amusing to read his evidence when he had to admit, in the witness box, that his sworn evidence was exaggerated by a factor of fifteen times.

In the same case the Judge pointed out that the Fourth Summary of the IPCC falsely represented the science, in regard to alleged warming. A swatch of colour added to the graph, to misrepresent its import, did not prevent the judge from reading the graph, and demonstrated the misrepresentation from the document itself. Of course we have seen many subsequent examples of the mendacity of the IPCC.