Mostly agree with most of this Jenny always providing Prof Ridd is not the only candidate? Who ideally will be scientifically grounded, understands how to ensure runoff just doesn't leave the farm, (Simplicity itself) how to read a PH meter; and how to listen to bona fide expert opinion (with ears, eyes and mind open) that is backed by scientific evidence that stands up to repeatable scientific rigor! A extremely reliable built in BS meter would also assist?
Without bias, Alan B.

The last sentence is the key to the problem (or, as even scientists say today, ‘issue’, which in itself says almost all one needs to know about the problem) Jennifer describes. Scepticism was the hallmark of my scientist colleagues when I started out. We all enjoyed pulling the work of others to pieces, we laughed at their bloopers and we set out to prove them wrong, which often they were not. Indeed, if I were asked to name the three core qualities needed for good science I would say intellect, curiosity and scepticism. Today’s scientists seem to lack scepticism, or at least the caution and self-criticism that go with it. So I wonder whether any government regulatory or oversight function based on ‘organised scepticism’ (or even organized skepticism) could ever get off the ground. One sceptical Professor (plus Jennifer of course) just isn’t enough.

Given his publishing history and political associations, I couldn't think of a worse candidate for the proposed imaginary position.

Except maybe Jennifer herself.

There are three things to consider here.

The Science although not prefect (nothing is) scientific forums have a way to weed out bad science and support good science. If Professor Ridd has found problems with other groups work then he should publish in a credible science journal.

The second point is about politics. Anybody who has had anything to do with politicians (either side it doesn't matter) will know that facts are tools of convince not of restraint. If they support your view then use them, if they don't ignore them.

Lastly the idea of a Science Ombudsman. We have a chief science already which is about as close as I'd like to see us go towards an
Ombudsman. The post would most likely be highly political and neither side of any any position would be happy.

Ask yourself Jennifer if there was such a position and the person ruled against Professor Ridd assertions would he drop it?

So the idea makes for great press in the right wing blogs and news papers but that's about it.

Good article -- notwithstanding the problem of appointing someone who is truly objective and unbiased.

However, the need for a Science Ombudsman extends well beyond the research surrounding the Great Barrier Reef.

Forests issues (and possibly other areas of natural resource use)are also being badly misrepresented by biased research specifically by one academic institution targeting the production of timber. This is linked to that institution's financial and philosophical partnership with an ENGO that has pushed this agenda for decades.

It seems that the researchers in question view the forestry profession and the industry as enemies and so now rarely consult with those who actually have the practical knowledge of what happens in forests --- and this disconnect plays a substantial role in the resultant research which is seemingly designed to give ammunition to activist and political campaigns through media blitzkriegs.

Rather than being genuine efforts to further our knowledge, such research typically advocates for political outcomes rather than practical solutions. Sadly, the evidence of this has been laid bare since academic institutions started to publicly promote their brand in the competitive quest for more students and research funding --- I suspect the mantra is that the greater the public impact of their research (eg. controversy created by alarmist media coverage) the more notice taken of their brand. Sadly, this is blurring the formerly clear distinction between activism and academia, and leading to outcomes that are not necessarily evidence-based.

Mark, We don't actually need someone 'objective' and 'unbias' in the position, we simply need someone prepared to hear the alternative perspective, and hold everyone accountable.

Bugsy, Cobber, There are so many examples of the establishment scientists simply 'making it all up', that we absolutely need some balance, we need someone to shake things up so there is some accountability.

Peter Ridd was published on this topic here... http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11455

"Professor Ridd would be the perfect candidate for such a position, he understands science and the need for organized skepticism."

It seems to me that the only real qualification that Peter Ridd has for this imaginary position is that Jennifer Marohasy agrees with him.

In fact the whole idea of a Science Ombudsman smacks more of a case of "we don't like the science, so we want a political way of sidelining it". It would be virtually impossible to find anyone with the right level of expertise across numerous disciplines to be able on an individual basis for every decision "to check the science before governments commit to spending hundreds of millions of dollars" .

There is already a means for guiding the Government on what the science agrees on. It is called the Chief Scientist.

Agronomist,

Would the Chief Scientist be able to investigate and then report on this blatant misrepresentation of the science... as detailed in the above article...

"A decade ago, there were newspaper headlines claiming dugongs were being killed by a dioxin, which was from pesticide runoff from sugarcane farms. Two years later, the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology concluded that the dioxin of concern was naturally occurring and common in soils along the entire Queensland coastline, including in regions beyond sugarcane cultivation. Yet even after this clarification and after the information had been passed on to senior bureaucrats, the false claim of elevated levels of fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs was repeated in their influential briefing papers and reports."

More information here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Review55-1DeceitinNameConservation.pdf

I would really like to see this resolved.

How should this information be presented to Chief Scientist? How might he seek to resolve the issue?

""A decade ago, there were newspaper headlines claiming dugongs were being killed by a dioxin, which was from pesticide runoff from sugarcane farms....""

There is not much anyone can really do with newspaper headlines being wrong. However, I thought the problem was with the scientific information that went to the Government. I haven't followed the dioxin story at all closely, but my impression was that the issue was soil run-off from cattle farming areas being dispersed across the reef area and the dioxins present in the soils being picked up by species on the reef. Indeed, this seems to have been specifically addressed by the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Act 2009, which implemented strategies to increase pasture cover and decrease soil erosion.

Neither scientists, not the Baker report claimed the dioxins were from pesticides. That was a separate issue that pesticides do run-off from farmland to the reef and from cane-farming in particular. Although it is herbicides rather than insecticides that are now the main problem. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11004310

There are also ways of managing these problems http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713009017 that should be implemented.

I don't see a role for the Chief Scientist to address a decade-old example of you misreading the science and getting confused.

Agronomist,

Herbicides and insecticides are types of pesticides. If you read the information at the link I provided you would see that the original issue was with herbicide use in sugarcane, not insecticide use. You have a tendency to jump to conclusions. ;-).

Indeed, the issue has never been resolved, you would understand this if you read the link that I provided. Here it is again...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Review55-1DeceitinNameConservation.pdf

The bottomline is that Dr Baker ignored my correspondence, as did the then head of the Premier's department. I still have the correspondence and would be keen to pass it on to the Chief Scientist should he be interested in correcting the record.

Apparently you are more interested in defending the indefensible.

There is an inherent logic in the proposal of a Science Ombudsman because despite the current authoritative paradigm driven by AIMS, the ARC Centre of Excellence…, and perhaps less forcefully by the GBRMPA, or less influentially by various lesser GBR/NGO pressure groups, there are nevertheless some scientists that are prepared (at some personal career/funding risk) to question the quality of the claims and as to why only the alarming aspects of data are abroad.

One point is, that based on advice from these authorities, (who arguably may have self-interest in creating concerns with those that fund them), governments may make huge investments in response. Yet, some scientists argue at personal risk that such investments are an overreaction.

To check-out such counterarguments has the potential to avoid unnecessary huge investments at relatively low cost.

Whilst the existing (general) Ombudsman might take an interest if he would accept appropriate advice (and that consensus or voting on science may not = truth) it seems doubtful to me (with scientific training) that he has staff trained to handle the subtleties in these scientific controversies.

Thus a Science Ombudsman makes $ sense.

Bob Fernley-Jones (Mechanical engineer retired)

Bugsy,
Any chance you could fill us in in a few details?

Agronomist & Bugsy,

You have not pondered the possibility that the Chief Scientist might be entrenched in paradigm or consensus views?

Jennifer, I fully understand the difference between insecticides and herbicides. I mentioned insecticides because you stated the problem was with fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs and these are almost always insecticides. In addition, your article from 2002 failed to mention diuron specifically or herbicides generally.

If you can't get your story straight, then it will be difficult for others to adequately respond.

Allow me to suggest that your correspondence did not get the response you wanted, because you were unable to provide evidence of a problem with the report. Baker did not ignore your correspondence as your own article states that Baker responded promising to consult with the science panel. What he didn't do is get back to you afterwards. I suggest, based on what you wrote in the article compared with what I know from the science, this is because your concerns were largely without merit.

The report wasn't claiming dioxins were coming from pesticides. There are indeed issues with insecticide movement from land to the reef and these are a potential risk to wildlife (although a small risk at the moment).

The Queensland Government response as set out in the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Act 2009, seems to me to have identified the main problem issues: soil erosion from cattle farms; and herbicides and nitrates from sugar cane production. Reducing the movement of these would deal with any potential threat to the reef without stopping people from farming.

Bob Fernley-Jones, the whole point of consensus in science is a description of what science agrees on, rather than the views of a couple of maverick engineers on topics outside their expertise. If the Chief Scientist were to give advice diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus, I would want them sacked.

Jennifer: Would the Chief Scientist be able to investigate and then report on this blatant misrepresentation of the science... as detailed in the above article...

Bob Fernley Jones: You have not pondered the possibility that the Chief Scientist might be entrenched in paradigm or consensus views?

Agreed on both counts. The Chief Scientist cannot be relied upon for impartial judgement. Nor can a responsible-Minister-appointed panel, e.g. the panel that looked into the BOM temperature record adjustment process was biased in favour of BOM, as Jennifer can attest.

Appointment of a science ombudsman appears the appropriate solution.

Agronomist,

You write: "fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs and these are almost always insecticide". In this instance the "fat-soluble pesticide" proved to be a naturally occurring dioxin. Furthermore, John Brodie/David Haynes and others never claimed it as a insecticide, but rather initially claimed it was a byproduct of the use of the herbicide 2,4-D in sugarcane.

Raycom, and/or someone with some administrative/legal expertise:

I've been emailed the following link, with the note that,
"It would appear that they cover public universities.
http://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/ "

So, could complaints about JCU's treatment of Peter/his photographic evidence goto the existing Queensland Ombudsman?

Furthermore, regarding the issue of temperature homogenization, could this go to an Ombudsman?

The examples represent such blatant misrepresentation of evidence, surely they simply need to be brought before a fair minded person with some authority?

John Singer wrote at my Facebook page:
"I suggested a citizens jury and I am told scientific matters are complex and probably beyond their ken. Perhaps, but we rely on citizen Juries on matters of life and death so perhaps there is some merit in the idea.
I do have experience of specialist tribunals and I formed the view many years ago that the familiarity which develops between specialist adjudicators and the specialists or lawyers appearing before them rarely achieves the just result that was being sought. The elephant in the room is that 'other case' being battled of which the appellant is blissfully unaware.
I believe in the common sense of people who have not been influenced by either side of a complex matter to be able to find where the truth lies, to identify pressures and weaknesses and to come to a decision as rational as a Court but faster and cheaper. Put five such people together like the old Equity Juries and who knows maybe we could have a workable system."

What were "Equity Juries"?

Agronomist,

“If the Chief Scientist were to give advice diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus, I would want them sacked.”

You are displaying an elitist attitude that is being critiqued here and which is sometimes called ‘group-think’. It is bad for the advancement of science which has sensibly been seen as benefiting from scepticism.

Let’s pretend we are back in the early 20th century and Alfred Wegener (a German scientist) who was primarily a meteorologist submitted a theory to our Chief Scientist that the Earth’s continents are not in a fixed position but drifting around. Let’s imagine that the Chief Scientist independently studied the evidence and agreed that this was true. Given that it took the geological establishment (the consensus group) some thirty years to accept the theory, to be renamed tectonics, it follows that you would want the chief scientist sacked for actually concluding correctly on the evidence.

A deplorable attitude!

And exactly what policy involving continental movement would this hypothetical Chief Scientist be advising on Bob?

I am not exactly opposed to the idea of a Science Ombudsman, so I don't really know where you get that impression.

I am however of the opinion that anyone from your particular kaffeeklatsch should be immediately disqualified for the position, especially if Jennifer is putting their name forward.

Bob Fernley-Jones,

I am familiar with Wedener's case. As I understand it, the idea he proposed was not accepted for a number of reasons: he was a meteorologist not a geologist or geophysicist, he was German at a time when British geologists were leading the way, he published his idea in an obscure German scientific journal but mostly because he could offer no mechanism to explain how the continents could have moved in the way he proposed.

Rather than the Science Ombudsman, or Chief Scientist, making an ex-cathedra statement of truth or falsity, I would have expected a comment along these lines.

"Thank you, Mr (or Dr, as appropriate) Wegener for your ideas. I thank you for highlighting some interesting anomalies of coastline fit, distribution of fossils, and distribution of geologic terranes. I agree that these anomalies are perplexing and that yours is a particularly convincing explanation of their occurrence. One major problem with your hypothesis is that you can provide no way that these large pieces of the Earth's crust could move around in the way you assume. Hence, I must say that in the absence of any mechanism I must regard your idea as Not Proven and clearly not dismissed. Should further research give some inkling of a mechanism, your idea could be revisited. I thank you for your time and energies.

The key here is Not Proven, a position somewhere between Guilty and Acquitted and allowing a later re-opening of the question should new evidence come to hand.

Jennifer, having re-read and then read your article another time, I notice that there some significant omissions from your article about the health and well-being of the reef that the appointment of a GBReef ombudsman would not change.

Among other things there is no mention of oceanic warming, there is no mention of increased acidity due to increased oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, there is no mention of reef damage because of dredging to allow bigger ships to load and there is no mention of damage to the reef due to navigational "accidents".

I agree that your article does focus on the possible need for a GBReef Ombudsman. The imputation that the appointment of such a person would solve all the problems confronting the reef without any further action being necessary is what I have drawn from your article.

Brian,

Perhaps, if an Ombudsman helped with the weeding-out of the bogus claims, we could find the real and pressing issues facing the GBR.

The issue of ocean acidification is gaining a lot of publicity. There is a review of the topic in a recent special issue of ICES Journal of Marine Science. From this it could be concluded that:

There has been an ‘explosion’ of research on the topic of ocean acidification, quite unprecedented in the marine sciences. This is illustrated by the exponential growth in published papers since 2000, with almost no publications on this topic back then, to now nearly 4000 papers on the topic.

There are, however, established marine scientists expressing much concern over both the methodologies used and conclusions reached in some of the most high profile published investigations.

Indeed, it is openly stated in this most recent review of the topic that detrimental impacts of ocean acidification are easily publishable, whereas results that show marginal or no effects are, in contrast, very difficult to get published in the peer-reviewed literature. This is an issue with significant public policy implications that extends well beyond ocean acidification and climate science.

I would be keen to see some data on actual changes in ocean pH at the GBR over the last 100 years. Does anyone have a good reference?

A recent study by Wei et al. 2015 (Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans) of the northern South China Sea indicates that natural decadal variations in seawater pH trump possible long-term anthropogenic effects.

Cheers,

Brian,

Quote1) “I am familiar with Wedener's case. As I understand it, the idea he proposed was not accepted for a number of reasons: he was a meteorologist not a geologist or geophysicist, he was German at a time when British geologists were leading the way”

You have just demonstrated (in a style remarkably similar to that of Agronomist earlier) that group-think and elitism in science also existed in the early 20th century. Yes, it is not new, and a topical gross example has been the case of JCU ostracising one of its professors for observing inconvenient FACTS that fall outside of the current group-think of its collegiate (the establishment or ‘consensus’).

Yes, Wegener’s primary interest was meteorology but my recollection is that he was widely talented in other fields of science and even languages. To suggest that he was incapable of making evidence-based scientific observations is very, very naïve.

Brian,

Quote 2) “Rather than the Science Ombudsman, or Chief Scientist, making an ex-cathedra statement of truth or falsity, I would have expected a comment along these lines… …One major problem with your hypothesis is that you can provide no way that these large pieces of the Earth's crust could move around in the way you assume. Hence, I must say that in the absence of any mechanism I must regard your idea as Not Proven and clearly not dismissed.”

(Penultimate word error; delete not?).

You can’t be serious! Scientific observation of a physical phenomenon does not require proof of its mechanism. For instance, (arguably less compellingly than Wegener’s observations), the much lauded IPCC WG1 AR5 report (WG1 = The Scientific Basis) makes very many pronouncements whilst conceding that the mechanisms involved are poorly understood. Your attitude suggests naively for example that we cannot accept that our sun is currently very sunspot-inactive

An example quite relevant to the current severe coral bleaching* in the far north of the GBR is that it coincided with the peak of the big 2016 El Nino warming (although 1998 was bigger by some measures). However, although this ENSO phenomenon is well observed and its consequences are well described, its drivers or causes are unknown. No matter, despite the causes being unknown, those keen to report hot thermal bleaching on the GBR wilfully forecast that hot ocean poolings like this, (which are a major spike-departure from underlying warming trends), will increase in severity and frequency! (HOW do they KNOW?).

This is the sort of stuff, (there being a plethora too big for here), which should be examined by an authority totally independent of the collegiate consensus group.

* Not part of the topic here BTW.