As a fellow physicist, I am embarrassed by Ridd's article. It is writing like this that will ensure that science "breaks".

Ridd doesn't seem to understand that the key distinction between science and law is that science relies on a the processes of empirical evidence, as compared with adversarial advocacy in the legal system (see J. Ziman "Public Knowledge: The social dimension of science". Cambridge University Press 1968). A "smart" lawyer can get a felon acquitted by "swaying" the jury in the limited period of the trial. There is no concept of "double jeopardy" in science and if errors are made- as they often are- then they tend to be rectified over time if they are important errors.

Paradoxically, Ridd's CV lists an impressive number of apparently peer-reviewed research papers, presumably funded by the aforesaid "broken" system. Are the findings in these papers reliable, given the allegedly dodgy system that has supported them? Is he 'fessing up?

The paradox is even deeper, as he is an "advisor" to the Australian Environment Foundation. AEF's website is essentially a catalog of denialist literature. As an "advisor" does Ridd apply the same peer-review discipline to AEF literature that is applied to ARC-funded literature?

If OLO readers want to read something sensible about this vexing issue, try "Reflection on Funding panels" published at RealClimate.org last week, together with about 50 thoughtful responses (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/)

Dr Ridd's essay seems to me to have two parts. The first is about peer review which, I would agree, can be deficient. It's the best system we have, but that is not saying much. Incidentally, I don't think that it establishes a piece of research as 'gold standard'. What it does do is to get the research out into the public domain. Whether or not a given piece of research is any good will be determined over time thereafter. The great majority of peer-reviewed research disappears almost without trace.

The second part is about the deficiency of the IPCC system, where a single institution has the job of assessing the current state of research in a given area, and reporting on that to the rest of us. If that was all it did, I could live with it. As with peer review, I think the IPCC can be seen to be deficient in some areas. In particular, it does not explain how it has come to value some research over others. There is very little argument in the AR4 and earlier reports.

I'm not sure, however, that I am persuaded that the proposed Scientific Challengers Office has a future. I have argued for a Royal Commission to assess the AGW claims, but accept that this too could be dodgy.

The problem is that AGW proponents tell us that unless we do costly and difficult things now we will be responsible for the end of human civilisation as we know it. This is a big claim indeed, and no other scientific hypothesis that I can think of has come with such apocalyptic overtones. Would else would the SCO do other than deal with AGW? And isn't the democratic political system (yes, that has deficiencies, too) finally the real arbiter in all this?

A most polite and reasonable approach, by Peter Ridd, to the very real problem that we are no longer able to rely on science in our community, to be even handed and honest.

He is right that we need a community funded body to challenge scientific findings which affect the community.

The reason for this is that science has been politicised, so that instead of being conducted in an objective and principled manner, it is conducted to produce “science” to validate government proposals, which in reality have no valid scientific base.

This does not matter in a unique country like the Czech Republic, where the government acknowledges that AGW is a fraud, but certainly matters in the rest of the Western countries where previously reputable scientific bodies like the CSIRO, the BOM, numerous University Departments, The Roal Society, and others have been subverted to produce material which skirts around the fact that there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions of CO2 have any measurable effect on climate.

This is pointed up by the lack of argument in the comments here on this article, which resort to criticism and abuse of Peter and of other scientists who have put forward valid dismissals of the AGW fraud.

The encouraging aspect is that despite the relentless push of the fraud backers, public opinion continues to build against them. A majority now realise that the AGW assertion is baseless. It is only a matter of time before the poll driven politicians must acknowledge this.

Every one of these negative commenters have been challenged to produce scientific evidence, and they routinely ignore the question,or refer us to fraudulent sites like RealClimate, or Skeptical Science. Generally they contribute only the abuse which one must expect from desperate people, with no valid basis for their assertions.

It is a sad fact that anything associated, in whole or even in part, with AGW can be relied on to produce a level of nastiness in the responses that is unique. Professor Ridd's article was only in part about AGW. He clearly sees issues such as the science of the Great Barrier Reef as another massive issue. He is a Physical Oceanographer so it can be presumed he has reasons for his scientific comncerns. The comments on this article see nothing but AGW. Pity.
If we make the assumptions (a) that Professor Ridd is intelligent and (b)that he is old enough to know the way people react in any given set of circumstances; then we have to assume that he will have expected to have to endure the gross vitriol in comments such as those of Ken Fabos and Shintaro.
The very nastiness of many of the comments demonstrates that at least in part Ridd's article was right on the button. He commented that it is not nice, pofitable or enjoyable to question fashionable thinking. He emphasised the point that it is much easier to do nothing, to go with the tide, to not rock the boat.
Doubtless Professor Ridd will survive the venom, but the splenetic commenters will, I am sure, know that they have in part proved Ridd's case and more importantly for them made sure that anyone else who 'comes out' with scientific thinking which is contrary to any fashion can expect the same belting - so best keep quiet.

I want to endorse Jedimaster's suggestion that posters read the piece on funding panels on the Real Climate Change website. And while you're at it browse the site.

As for science not being an adversarial process – well of course it isn’t in the same sense that the law is. Dodgy “scientists” like Phil Jones notwithstanding, most scientists really do want to get at the truth. Lawyers, on the other hand, are mostly interested in obfuscation.

But scientific arguments can get pretty intense and emotional. And, unfortunately, with reputations, tenure, research grants and livelihoods at stake, many scientists succumb to the temptation to cheat.

What shocks me is not that a second rate scientist expressed an intention to cheat but the fact that he was not sacked. And please don’t tell me that a Parliamentary enquiry cleared Jones. There is NO legitimate use of the word “trick” juxtaposed with the word “hide” in connection with the presentation of data in a scientific publication.

Every day that Jones continues in his job advertises the fact that the scientific process – or processes to satisfy Bugsy – is /are indeed in need of overhaul.

I am truly sorry to find myself on the same side as a climate change denier on this issue. It grates. I wish I could tell Ridd his article is bunk.

But in the end it is what it is.

That does not mean that I buy Ridd’s remedy or have any illusions about Ridd himself. I have my own ideas on how to repair the process or processes.

Steven,

Could you try not to use the word 'denier'? It is not necessary. If you mean that Dr Ridd does not accept the full force of the IPCC's findings in AR4, that is another matter. What is it that you think Dr Ridd denies?

And on websites, I ought to have mentioned the excellent 'Climate etc.' of Judith Curry. It is very good indeed, and you will find all shades of opinion there, including people who do in fact deny everything that the IPCC says — or at least they appear to. And yo wil learn a lot there too, which should help people feel that the time they have spent is worthwhile — if they are there to learn...