As a scientist in a previous life, I love Michael Crichton's idea that there should be strict separation between the people that collect the data and the people that analyze & interpret the data for politically charged areas of science. Both would operate from independent institutes, funded by all stakeholders. If you let me collect and analyze my own data, I am open to all sorts of influence depending on who is funding my work, peer pressure, etc. Once the data has been collected, then the analysis portion could even be split tested, with two independent groups funded to do the analysis independently on exactly the same data set, and then we can compare truly independent conclusions.
The other problem that pervades climate change is the shockingly bad statistical analysis. At the least, there should be a separate statistical institute that can put its stamp of approval on the statistical parts of the results. With such limited historical climate data older than a very recent period, and projections made far into the future, we must ensure that only the very best statistical analyses make it into the public awareness. Alas, climate researchers are often not at the leading edge of statistics.
The other problem that pervades climate change is the shockingly bad statistical analysis. At the least, there should be a separate statistical institute that can put its stamp of approval on the statistical parts of the results. With such limited historical climate data older than a very recent period, and projections made far into the future, we must ensure that only the very best statistical analyses make it into the public awareness. Alas, climate researchers are often not at the leading edge of statistics.