" ... collapse of the once revered scientific process ... "
" ... there will need to be an inquiry into how so many scientific bodies abandoned core principles of scientific integrity ... "
" ... silenced those who tried to continue the scientific endeavour ... "
"Group-think that maintains prevailing fads and suppresses dissent on behalf of alleged ‘consensus’ is the opposite of the central purpose of universities"
This site has pointed out before now that the scientific method, which prizes investigative questioning and confirmation/refutation of accepted theories by multiple independent scientists, has been abandoned in recent years in favour of both complexity, and "authority", posing as science.
This basic foundation of "science" has been honoured far more in the breach in recent years rather than in the observance, so it is with appreciation that we find the Global Warming Policy Forum making much the same point, as ably reported by the Daily Sceptic.
The breach of course has been in the tacit discarding of the vital independence that true science requires of its scientists - funding models confirm that most published scientific papers comply with the results required by those that funded the research. Of course in an ideal world, those who fund such research would want the truth rather than short-term advantage (the truth will always come out eventually), but our world seems to be far from ideal in recent years. Motivation is all.
The GWPF publishes a preprint paper by joint authors from both Oxford and Cambridge universities - so it has still to pass the hurdle of peer review. It will be interesting to see how it fares as "science".
A key recommendation is that "Institutions such as universities, scientific academies and journals should not take official positions on scientific issues since this stifles diversity of thought, freedom of speech and the reliability of advice" and one might add, thereby contravenes the basic requirement for independence in the search for the truth.
One further item for research that perhaps should have been recommended (though not strictly anything to do with the scientific process) might have concerned the guidance provided by the so-called "fact-checking" media-political complex - it must be well overdue a critical appraisal in the interests of keeping the public independently and accurately informed, whilst preserving "free speech".