The clearest sign that the AGW side of climate science is broken is the persistent refusal by its practitioners to divulge what they would accept as evidence AGAINST global warming. This puts AGW theory in the same basket as homeopathy, Freudian psychology, religion, astrology and Marxism, as a pseudoscience whose faithful will go on defending it regardless of the clear and growing indications of what complete nonsense it is. When two years of (unpredicted) winter blizzard conditions across the Northern Hemisphere are taken to be evidence in favour 'global warming', then clearly the 'science' is not merely broken but kaput, SNAFU, defunct and pushing up daisies.

It has gone to meet its maker. It is ex-science.

One thing which all the 'posters ' have ignored is that the judiciary long ago developed BOTH a set of "standards of evidence' (Google 'Daubert'if interested)) AND an impressive infra-structure for deciding whether or not testimony by defence or prosecution so-called 'expert witnesses' met these standards. The judiciary did this because it realised that jurors could not be expected to have the background or expertise to make such decisions, and could be easily swayed by plausible and glib so-called 'experts'. Under this infra-structure, if the judge cannot decide if these standards have been met, then the decision can be passed all the way up to the high court. Forensic science as we know it today was PARTLY a consequence of the judiciary's decision to develop this system.
I think science needs to think about developing a similar infra-structure.
Cambo

THE DENIERS HAVE WON
As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, “just” to get them to turn the lights out more often? I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of insane climate control.
I apologize for our constant demonizing, fear mongering and our whacko exaggerations of climate change. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD.
I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:
-that it was the trusted scientists and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
We admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?

Actual stevenlmeyer, the assumption here is that there is an overarching 'scientific process' that is somehow 'broken'. Like many claims against the 'democratic process' etc.

What appears to be in issue here is that both you and Peter appear to be complaining specifically about
1) The scientific reporting 'process', in that one can't publish against the establishment as some reviewers will reject to protect their pet theories. Well this is why we have more than one journal for just about everything. You will always find a journal to publish in and this is becoming far easier now we have open access and internet journals. If you get rejected by the journal you want to publish in, have a bit of a pout.
2) The scientific funding process, which is of course completely different and difficult. There is only so much in the research budget, having a bit of sulk because

3) The pharmaceutical industry practices do not reflect all science, but is a reflection of what corporations do with science to protect steady income streams. This also is not a 'science is broken' situation.

The scientific community is a chaotic jumble of separate processes, funding streams, reporting requirements etc. There is no overarching 'process' that you can point to and say 'that's broken'.

Both you an Peter Ridd have dome quite well out of various 'scientific processes' over the years, I think it's just churlish to say that the whole 'scientific process' is broken when you see something you don't like happening.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]