UPDATE: I made this a “top post” that will remain at the top of WUWT until we reach the goal. New content will appear below. UPDATE2: as of 12:30 PM PST on 2/2/18 we are within 5% of reaching the goal. If you haven’t already, now is the time to help.
UPDATE 3: BOOM! Thanks to everyone!!!! A last minute donation of $5,000 by Rodney Hackett put it over the top! There were other people who also gave $1000 or more. Peter tells me he’ll be in touch with everyone to send thanks. He says this now:
I am astonished, very relieved and most importantly incredibly grateful for the support. I would also particularly like to thank Anthony, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Willie Soon, Benny Peiser and many others for getting the issue up on blogs and spreading the word.
—-
Last week we covered this ugly saga of how a colleague of the late Dr. Bob Carter has been singled out for criticism and ruin by his university: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/29/the-power-of-grant-money-on-display-at-james-cook-university/
Now we have this announcement from Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, reposted below.
I ask three things of our readers.
- Retweet and repost this story wherever you can, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.
- To show support, buy a copy of the book in which he says the Great Barrier Reef alarmism is just that.
- If possible, donate to his campaign to fight back against the university- link below.
Peter Ridd Asks for your Help – Now
PROFESSOR Peter Ridd is a physicist at James Cook University who has dared to question scientific findings that purport to show the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. Specifically, he has been formally censured by the University and told to remain quiet about the matter – or risk his job.
The issue dates back to August 2017, and comments he made on television promoting the book I edited last year – Climate Change: The Facts 2017.
Peter wrote the first chapter in this book, and in it he suggests that there are major problems with quality assurance when it comes to claims of the imminent demise of the reef. He has also published in the scientific literature detailing his concerns about the methodology used to measure calcification rates, including a technical paper in Marine Geology (volume 65).
After some reflection over the last couple of months, and some thousands of dollars on legal fees – so far paid by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) that first published the book that got him into trouble – Professor Ridd has decided to fight the final censure.
In short, he has decided he would rather be fired than be quiet.
But he is now going to have to find about A$95,000!
So, this university Professor has set-up a crowdfunding account. It is now your turn to show support and help fight the case.
https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund
There is also this story in The Australian:
Marine scientist Peter Ridd has refused to accept a formal censure and gag order from James Cook University and expanded his Federal Court action to defend academic freedoms and free speech.
A revised statement of claim alleges JCU trawled through private email conversations in a bid to bolster its misconduct case against him.
JCU had found Professor Ridd guilty of “serious misconduct”, including denigrating a co-worker, denigrating the university, breaching confidentiality, publishing information outside of the university and disregarding his obligations as an employee.
Professor Ridd has asked the Federal Court to overturn the university ruling and confirm his right not to be silenced.
In the revised statement of claim, Professor Ridd has dropped an earlier claim of conflict of interest against JCU vice-chancellor Sandra Harding, but has alleged other senior staff had been biased and had not acted fairly or in good faith.
Professor Ridd’s Federal Court action is seen as a test of academic freedom and free speech, and has been supported by the Institute of Public Affairs.
Professor Ridd said he would seek public donations to continue the fight against JCU. He first took court action in November in a bid to stop a JCU disciplinary process against him for comments he made to Sky News presenter Alan Jones.
The university said by expressing concerns about the quality of some reef science, Professor Ridd had not acted in a “collegiate” manner.
Professor Ridd told Sky News: “The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.”
He said a lot of the science was not properly checked, tested or replicated and “this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more”.
A JCU spokesman said the university’s lawyers had invited Professor Ridd to discontinue his proceedings. “(He) has amended his proceedings. His decision to do so is a matter for him,” he said.
“The university intends to vigorously defend those proceedings (but) as these matters are before the courts, JCU will not comment further.”
Lawyers for JCU wrote to Professor Ridd on November 28 confirming the university had determined he had engaged in “serious misconduct” and issued him with a “final censure”.
“The disciplinary process and all information gathered and recorded in relation to the disciplinary process (including the allegations, letters, your client’s responses and the outcome of the disciplinary process) is confidential pursuant to clause 54.1.5 of the university enterprise agreement,” the JCU lawyers said.
Professor Ridd has subsequently published his concerns about the quality of reef science in a peer-reviewed journal. He said he was determined to speak freely about his treatment “even though it will go against explicit directions by JCU not to”.
“This is as much a case about free speech as it is about quality of science,” he said.
Again, I ask three things of our readers.
- Retweet and repost this story wherever you can, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.
- To show support, buy a copy of the book in which he says the Great Barrier Reef alarmism is just that.
- If possible, donate to his campaign to fight back against the university- link below.
https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First time poster, but long time lurker. I already own the book, but I have donated and shared on Facebook. That was the first time since June last year I shared anything on there, so will probably not be seen by many. Then again, every little helps. It really is heart warming to see how this community can come together on important issues and (hopefully) have a positive impact.
While I am here I want to give a big Thank You to all the regular and incidental contributors in these comment sections. At times, I get as much or more from reading the comments than from reading the actual articles. Your effort and patience is very much appreciated!
I thought that this might be a subject of discussion on “The conversation” , but putting “Ridd” into the search box on the Science and technology page only gave this , from 2012
https://theconversation.com/the-decay-of-the-great-barrier-reef-calls-for-a-reckoning-9931
The only mention of Peter Ridd is this :
-“Next in line are the amateur and professional (literally) climate change and reef decline deniers, who you’d think are feeling rather sheepish about this new science. One is Peter Ridd of James Cook University, who says things like “My general view is that the threats and supposed damage to the reef are greatly exaggerated”.
But the big kahuna is coral reef expert Andrew Bolt. Bolt has been mocking scientists like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland) for sounding warnings about the threat to the GBR from ocean warming and acidification.
Their rollicking dispute goes back years and I doubt Bolt will ever concede, but it has become even more apparent (if that is even possible) that Hoegh-Guldberg’s pessimism (or realism?) was prescient (not that he has anything to celebrate given the outcome).”-
It does not seem, to the author of this piece, Prof Bruno of North Carolina , that Prof Ridd’ s comments are sufficiently appalling to cause him to lose his livelihood, back in 2012 anyway and the worst that can be said of the more heinous of the ” deniers ” , Prof Bolt, is that he engages in a “rollicking discussion”.
This is not about science is it , its about money for JCU, currently 9th in the ranking of Australian Universities and No 360 or in the range 200-250 in World rankings (depending on which ranking scheme you choose).
(PS I do not know what a kahuna is . It sounds pretty nasty , but clearly not nasty enough for it to be excised from academic life.)
You use a lot of words to deny the facts that coral has always bleached and aleayscwill, and that OA, except in models, is undetectable in reality. You, like many fanatics, hope that by quoting verse and dismissing heretics because of their lack of standing (according to your circular reasoning) it can all go away.
Not odd for a true believer.
Hunter , “The Conversation” if you are not familiar with, it is an academic discussion / latest news forum , usually of a leftward slant. I thought that a topic concerning academic freedom would naturally appeal to its readers , but the only mention of Prof Ridd, and that in passing , is from 2012. Perhaps it is a bit too early.
On the question of bleaching I have no definite views because I do not think that there is enough unbiased information available to the general public outside the screaming misinformation from the likes of the BBC and the Guardian.
Given that Australia has a predominantly service based economy , of which tourism is an important part , the effects of scare stories concerning one of its major attractions should focus those political minds that have some responsibility for Australia’s financial well-being.
In a well ordered society the obvious policy would be to hold a Royal Commission on the state of health of the reef and the effects of natural and human activities on its future. That might take 2 years or so , but would enable all persons with an interest , whether scientific, environmental or commercial to have a say without being muzzled or harassed by academic bureaucrats , financial backers or the media.
good work anthony and wuwt.
Thanks, high praise from the moshpit!
Just donated and shared on Facebook. The treatment that JCU afford skeptics is the primary reason I abandoned any thoughts of doing a degree in Marine Biology there after spending more than a decade diving on the Great Barrier Reef.
I see the fund has already raised over $80,000 that puts a smile on my face.
Nick Stokes what is your op opinion?
I don’t think this is the sort of article that Nick likes to comment upon. However, for the record, Nick posted the following observations against one of my previous articles:
“…standard science…relies not on auditing but replication.”
I spent nearly all of my career in quality assurance, and much of that career was spent defending against accusations of being a corporate “traitor”. My habitual crime? Reporting non-conformity against procedure.
I see nothing particularly unusual in the treatment of Peter Ridd. When I had had enough of threats of physical violence and professional calumny, I just packed my bags and left them too it. That’s the way most quality assurance professionals end their career. Not with a bang but with a whimper. At least, that’s the demise of those who do not get sacked for doing their job.
Or should I say, “…left them to it”?
Yes, even QA professionals can make mistakes. Typos can be such a hooot.
Donated, of course. Also bought the book.
Donated. That Professor Peter Ridd is going through this is a testament that the Dark Ages was not a discrete event in human history.
Donated. He’s almost there.
Very close in less than a day! Just added to it.
Who could believe there are so many contrarians?
Now over 83,500 dollars as at 2pm UK time
Just donated. I have to stand up for my other “Unrepresented” pals.
Donated, not too far to go…
Made my small contribution.
The response, almost all from small donors, is amazing. It appears he will probably have more than his goal by the of the day; certainly by the end of the weekend
I wish the good Professor great success.
Much is at stake.
Over $84,000 now with my little bit added.
$84750 and rising.
$20 to good cause.
What the hell has happened to Australia?
Exactly my question I have been asking recently. As an expat Aussie who has lived outside the country for the last 25 years.. when I read things like this I find Australia increasingly alien to me. As for the Australia Day celebration protests…don’t get me started.
I think what has happened is that we are all now paying the price for allowing the leftist-progressive movement to slowly take over the education system, almost world-wide, or certainly in the English-speaking world anyway. And the output from colleges and universities since then are the ones who are now calling the shots.
Absolutely my thinking. Western education system is nothing more than dogmatic propaganda. Instead of teaching children to think, they are taught to obey authority and to believe everything the system tells them dogmatically.
History shows that the elite have been wrong about a great many widely held beliefs and without doubt the elite will continue to be so. In my short lifetime, “butter” was declared a pariah and margarine (trans-fat) the healthy cure for all our ills and then we found margarine (trans-fat) are worse for health …..and so it goes….
The government is not denying Mr. Rudd his freedom to speek… so far. There is no freedom to free speech at your place of employment. There are several legal grounds for action here, but the denial of free speech is not one of them.
AGW is a political battle. Fortunately, there are not that many people in the US that are convinced that the problem is serious enough to alter their lifestyles one iota (hundreds of private jets to Paris prove that AGW’ers don’t). Unfortunately, the AGW’ers are armed with $Billions of our tax $Dollars annually AND a few $Billions worth of free propaganda by our lying press.
Science is a method and system that oftentimes uncovers the truth about how the universe works. Unfortunately, political and financial interests can and often do add confounding factors to that pursuit of the truth.
It is not a good day when so many scientists and journalists are willing to tarnish and abuse what should be sacred institutions (for the discovery and dissemination of the truth).
It is true that they do.
Hopefully, nature will be blindly kind to scientific and journalistic sanctity by cooling the Earth significantly for a decade or so, (which is not unlikely).
That’s about the only thing that could dry up the flows of $Money to climate science and encourage journalists lie about other things (that don’t involve climate or science).
$125 AU
I think the most important thing about the study of Physics is to keep mankind eternally humble. The volume of issues that we understand in the physical universe is dwarfed by the amount that we do not know and may very well never know. Thank you Professor Ridd for standing up for science and fighting against the forces of ignorance.
Doug Sherman
BS Physics
UC Davis, 1985
Thank you Professor Ridd for standing up for science and fighting against the forces of ignorance.
Absolutely.
The opposition to his views don’t make sense, scientifically.
Science depends on genuine, real-world observations. You have your hypothesis, you develop a measure that ought to be obtained if your hypothesis is true, and not obtained if false, and then you go gather that observation by the plan.
You can have a forecast based on a range of scientifically known factors, such as calcification rates, etc., but the only way to scientifically know whether a forecast, or projection, or prediction, about the future is to wait SO THAT YOU CAN CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY, DE RIGUER OBSERVATION.
With no observation, a forecast is never scientific. By definition.
So, it is ridiculous to censure a critic.
Finally: criticism and discussion of generally supported scientific ideas is part and parcel of science. If you cannot handle criticism, don’t try out for American Idol, and don’t get into science.
Done, and it’s over $85,000 now.
Done, over 87000 now.
Another AUD 50…
+25US
In the chapter, he wrote, “As a scientist, to question the proposition that the reef is damaged
is a potentially career-ending move (Lloyd 2016).”
There’s a climate science prediction that is being validated as we speak.
https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/ridd-p-chapter-1-from-climate-change-the-facts-2017-ipa.pdf
That also marks a new low in academic published debate.
Closing in on the target – 93k and counting …