Mikko2,

Dr Ridd raises areas of the peer-review process that can sometimes be improved, but his portrayal often exaggerates the issues, while failing to acknowledge the improvements with ongoing reforms.

Firstly, scientific consensus is not synonymous with absolute truth; it is the best understanding we have based on current evidence. Science progresses through challenging existing ideas and evolving with new evidence. This system is designed to improve over time, incorporating new findings as they arise.

While Ridd suggests that peer review can be cursory, many top journals employ rigorous processes where reviewers spend considerable time evaluating research. The scientific community is actively working to improve replication and reanalysis, promoting open data and reproducibility initiatives.

Comparing academic research to private industry is inaccurate. Private industry research often remains behind closed doors, whereas academic research is open to public scrutiny, allowing broader peer evaluation. Despite occasional issues, most major scientific organisations maintain high standards of integrity. Claims of widespread failure need to be supported by solid evidence.

Efforts to improve the system are ongoing. Initiatives like the Open Science Framework and journals that publish replication studies are enhancing reproducibility. Some journals are adopting open peer review, increasing accountability and transparency.

When it comes to environmental decisions, the stakes are high, and the review process is typically extensive. Such decisions involve multiple layers of review, including input from independent experts, regulatory bodies, and international organisations.

While there are areas for improvement, the peer review process is not fundamentally flawed or unreliable. The scientific method is self-correcting, and peer review remains essential for maintaining scientific integrity and advancement. The ongoing push for transparency and rigorous review shows the community’s commitment to high standards. Understanding these nuances highlights the strengths of the scientific process and the importance of evidence-based decision-making.

So, there you have it.

Anyway, you’re not the first climate change denier I’ve seen use Ridd’s criticisms out of context. To clarify, his legal battle with JCU was over breaches of conduct, not his scientific views. His concerns about the peer review process highlight areas needing improvement but do not invalidate the entire system.

John Daysh, You do not give any indication of where you reside.
You also do not say what qualifications you have to keep up this ratbaggery.
I would believe Prof. Peter Ridd and sensible scientists (such as Pamela Jones whose blog link I sent you) before anything that you have said as you just seem to have your objection to anyone who has an idea to actually benefit Australia.
Why don’t you speak with Dick Smith for instance? Or Adi Patterson?
I hate to think what our next generations will think of this generation in fifty years’ time when all those ugly turbines and solar panels are clogging up the environment.
I am beginning to think you must be involved in the “renewables” industry to be so nauseatingly blind and thrusting your views onto unsuspecting newbies.
Those of us who have been researching and following this garbage for years understand the scam very well.
Those with vested interests would do anything to avoid Australia actually being served by something such as NUCLEAR that will KEEP THE POWER ON 24 HOURS A DAY.

Well said Farnortherner, and Lytton your realistic comments about AEMO and power supply levels seem to have been conveniently ignored. The stats for renewable generation would now be much worse in SE Qld and NSW, given the wet, cloudy weather this week and forecast to extend into next week (if BOM can get it right occasionally). Meanwhile, Farnortherner, you rightly mentioned Dr Aldi Paterson, the former head of ANSTO and a very knowledgeable advocate for nuclear energy. Here he is last night talking with Peta Credlin on Sky News and calling out the lies: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/csiro-is-genuinely-misleading-for-energy-information/video/e542e5994a0aa3ec7c18a09ec0260391

Farnortherner, you also mentioned Dick Smith as well as Adi Paterson. Dick is not against renewables but realises that we need nuclear for a reliable 24/7 power supply. Here he is on Sky News last night with Chris Kenny: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/renewables-versus-nuclear-chris-kenny-sits-down-with-entrepreneur-dick-smith/video/241aa2f57dd513311e5729a3e90e6078
(Every time I type Adi some dumb AI bot tries to change it - Aldi, Ali, Add ... )

Mikko 2, I noticed some gremlin must have taken over your keyboard. Probably is that AI bot - it gets into my keyboard at times as well :-).
I did see Adi P and Dick S on TV the past couple of days.

I think I have nearly had enough of that JD fellow as he has his mind made up. I just want to see the BAN LIFTED on Nuclear in this country so that the Nuclear experienced ministers can discuss the subject properly.

Farnortherner,

Failing to provide information that has not been requested is hardly “rat-baggery”. Especially when the desired information has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Embarrassingly for you, however, I did actually reveal my educational background earlier in this very thread.

It’s not hard to guess why you want this information, though, and I have dealt with enough climate change deniers enough over the years to know exactly where you want to go with it:

In the absence of any data supporting your position, I suspect you are now hoping to divert attention away from my arguments, and the evidence I link to, and instead direct it towards me personally. Having been unable to successfully rebut anything I’ve said, you’re probably hoping to use an “appeal to authority” fallacy to make my credentials the issue and bring everything I have said into question because you don’t yet understand why doing so is fallacious.

In my reply to this, I will then explain to you why my credentials are irrelevant, why an appeal to authority is fallacious, and why only the data matters.

Moving on, I have already addressed Ridd’s claims and would be happy to go further detail there if you wish. As for Dick Smith and Adi Patterson, I am happy to listen to them, but will still point out their errors when they make them.

As for the rest of your comments to me, I have already dealt with them ad nauseum, but will happily go into any of it again if you have a specific question. Word and posting limits prevent me answering every comment and claim you make.