
My battle to question doomsayers about the Great Barrier Reef - yters
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/08/science-or-silence-my-battle-to-question-doomsayers-about-great-barrier-reef.html
======
craftyguy
This guy has presented extremely little evidence in the article to support his
argument. That, coupled with it being on a tabloid leads me to doubt him. A
quick search on his name just reveals some recent disagreement he had with JCU
but, again, very little supporting evidence from his side. Can anyone find
more?

~~~
jaclaz
Well, from his homepage/portfolio on JCU he doesn't seem a "casual passer by"
or an "armchair critic":

[https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/peter.ridd/](https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/peter.ridd/)

The article (co-authored with Piers Larcombe) that backs the statement in the
interview that seemingly started it all is linked to among the other papers
related to the litigation:

[https://platogbr.wordpress.com/serious](https://platogbr.wordpress.com/serious)
misconduct /

it is this one (pdf):

[https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/larcombe-and-
ri...](https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/larcombe-and-
ridd-2018.pdf)

It doesn't seem to me at first sight particularly "aggressive" or
"anticollegial", right or wrong I have seen several similar arguments about
the "bad quality" and the "non-reproducibility" of studies:

ABSTRACT Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein
deﬁned as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing
and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a
considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientiﬁc literature, perhaps
half, has signiﬁcant ﬂaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the
present approaches to scientiﬁc Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of
science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR),
Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of
the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious
threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality
reviews and audits of important scientiﬁc results that underpin government
spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also
examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon
scientiﬁc results, such as education, health and criminology.

------
zeofig
Thanks, this really got the old gears turning.

