Climate skeptic professor Peter Ridd fired for his views by James Cook University @jcu

GOAL MET! THANKS TO EVERYONE, see the update from Peter Ridd here. See UPDATE below: JCU, feeling some blowback, issues a press release on a Sunday.


WUWT readers may recall that WUWT spearheaded an effort to help Ridd’s legal fund, earning nearly $100,000 in donations in two days. According to Ridd, in an email to me:

They gave me a set of new allegations a few days after the successful gofundme campaign in February and we have been fighting them ever since. They really hated that gofundme campaign as one would expect.

Ridd wrote then:

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.

Here are the latest details, Ridd says in an email:

With the assistance from the Institute of Public Affairs we have appointed a Queens Counsel lawyer (absolute top gun lawyer in the British/Australian system) and we are still confident that we will win the case. Firing me has merely doubled the bet.

He posted this on his GoFundMe page early this morning:


Just an update of my battle

On 2 May, 2018, I received a letter from James Cook University (JCU) terminating my employment. JCU have sacked me because I dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef.

Shortly after I went public with the GoFundMe campaign to which you donated in February the university presented me with a further set of misconduct allegations, which alleged that I acted inappropriately by talking about the case and have now ended my employment.

I will be fighting their employment termination, alongside the original 25 charges behind JCU’s ‘final censure’ last year.

As a consequence of the sacking, and the new misconduct allegations, my legal costs have substantially increased. JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me. In the name of honesty and truth in science, we must fight back. We have an excellent legal team and are confident that we can win the legal case.

I feel extremely indebted to all those who have given so generously. I was blown away by the number of people who supported me, and I had hoped that more funding would not be necessary. Sadly, however circumstances have changed. 

I have contributed another $15000 of my own money, in addition to the $24000k I have already spent. However, based on the growing complexity of the case, we will need to raise an additional $159000. It is a bit frightening, but we have reopened the GoFundMe site to receive more donations. 

You have already contributed generously so all I ask of you is to help spread the word to expand the number of people who are helping.

I know there were many who were unable to donate the first time – including my own Mum – due to the speed we reached the original target of $95K.

For additional background on all the new allegations from JCU, I have uploaded all the documentation so that you can judge JCU’s allegations for yourself if you wish. https://platogbr.wordpress.com/fired-details/

In summary, JCU (1) objects to my criticism of the earlier allegations; (2) criticised my involvement with the Institute of Public Affairs; and (3) objects to me not remaining silent. The facts of the matter are simple: (1) the earlier allegations were an unreasonable infringement on my academic freedom, I was well within my rights to criticise JCU; (2) I have never been paid by the IPA, other than some initial support for my legal case and reimbursement for flights and hotels related to speaking arrangements which is normal academic practice; and (3) I am well within my rights, as stated by my employment agreement, to speak publicly about disciplinary proceedings. 

Thanks, Peter


Jennifer Marohasy says on her web page:


Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy speaking about the need for quality assurance in science last November in Sydney.

BACK in 2016, when I asked Peter Ridd if he would write a chapter for the book I was editing I could not possibly have envisaged it would contribute to the end of his thirty-year career as a university professor.

Since Peter was fired on 2 May 2018, James Cook University has attempted to remove all trace of this association: scrubbing him completely from their website.

But facts don’t cease to exist because they are removed from a website. The university has never challenged the veracity of Peter’s legitimate claims about the quality of much of the reef science: science on which billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded research is being squandered. These issues are not going away.

Just yesterday (Friday 18 May), Peter lodged papers in the Australian Federal Court. He is going to fight for his job back! 

If you care about the truth, science and academic freedom, please donate to help bring this important case to court.

It doesn’t matter how little or how much you donate. Just make sure you are a part of this important effort by donating to Peter’s GoFundMe campaign.

There is more information at my blog, and a chart showing how much some reef researchers have fudged the figures.

Thanks for caring.

Sincerely,

Dr Jennifer Marohasy


This action is seriously wrong, and the mark of a collection of cowards engaged in group-think. It sets precedent for the death of free speech, free ideas, and freedom to interpret science where the data leads you.

Because they are in the wrong, JCU will, in the end, be forced to capitulate. Let’s make them miserable using every legal method available. – Anthony

UPDATE: Feeling the Streisand effect in full force, JCU issues a rare Sunday press release:

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2018/may/statement-about-peter-ridd

CLICK TO DONATE

Advertisements

320 thoughts on “Climate skeptic professor Peter Ridd fired for his views by James Cook University @jcu

  1. JCU is doing to Peter Ridd what it did to Bob Carter – but Cairns and Townsville newspapers don’t want to know about it. The original James Cook would be spinning in his grave about now.

    • I have a special loathing for JCU for what they did to Bob. And now this. All of us need to attack this crowd of revolting specimens without cease. I’d like to see pieces explaining to the World what is going on at extreme left wing gulag JCU punned at the top of all the major climate realist blogs.

      • That was a great university and a great geology dept until the CAGW BS-artists decided it just had to be infiltrated, ther was too much actual earth science being taught, and not nearly enough UN IPCC propaganda pamphlets being circulated.
        Look at it now, a reviled husk of what it once was when people like Bob Henderson, Mike Rubenach, Bob Carter, P J Stephenson and Chris Cuff made it the place for actual Earth science learning, then one of the top three geological sciences schools in Australia.
        Now JCU promotes anti-science and blattant repression.
        Where is the support from the actual scientists working at JCU? Why are they not standing up and putting and end to this anti-science nonsense, coming from JCU administration offices?
        You, the scientists of the other JCU sciences can end this—just close down the science faculty in protest for a week. Keep it up until this JCU Admin nonsense ends.
        Or are you too afraid of brain-washed students and media? You think you’re defeated already? If so you’ve already left it too late to do the right things.

    • Bob Carter was the greatest and I was unaware that JCU screwed him. He’ s a man of even greater courage and conviction for truth then.
      Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet. The reality of that is, we can bet no one hears about it, and either the Beak will judge against Ridd, or it will be settled out of court, or something, or Ridd will win and the whole thing hushed, not a word mentioned of it anywhere and it just won’t exist.
      The media in Oz has total control over silence, the power to make things non existent.
      This is a country where people all stand around silent on railway platforms because conversation is banned and fined by active police. To quote a recent shocked visitor, “The only thing free on the train was the WiFi.”

      • Joe, I’m not sure what part of Australia you been to but I find that comment utter nonsense. Please see the Australia newspaper today headline “Marine science rebel Peter Ridd sacked by James Cook University”

      • Joe Adams “This is a country where people all stand around silent on railway platforms because conversation is banned and fined by active police. To quote a recent shocked visitor, “The only thing free on the train was the WiFi.””
        In 67 years in Australia, mainly Sydney, I’ve NEVER encountered anything like the situation in your final paragraph. Until now I’ve never even heard of it. What’s your evidence Joe?

      • Joe Adams said “Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet.”
        Nanaimo on Vancouver Island, Canada, is worse. The government of British Columbia just raised the global warming ‘carbon’ tax again and the local rag did not report it.

      • I’m prepared to admit and lament the degree of political correctness in this country but show me a country where railway platforms are brimming with conversation, for heaven’s sake (and I’ve seen many). What a ridiculous comment.

      • Joe we have the Murdocracy and Rupert allows his editors free reign.
        The ABC, SBS and Fairfax media all avoid informing the masses that global warming is on its last legs.

      • “Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet.”
        Hyperbole.
        Off the cuff, the Ministry of Truth in North Korea, MSM UK and EU, MSM New Zealand, MSM USA, MSM Canada give Australia more than a very good run for its money.

      • The Australian newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is vilified by the Left for printing the truth.

      • In terms of free speech limitations, Australia has a long way to go to catch up with the likes of Sweden and the UK. If you haven’t been following the UK recently, we have seen people banned from entering for wrong think, detained before being deported for the audacity of wanting to talk about free speech at Speaker’s Corner, tried and convicted over jokes and tweets, and there is legislation afoot to incarcerate people for propagating harmful tweets. One can only imagine how much worse it will become if Corbyn ever seizes power, which is possible given how ridiculously weak the Conservatives are right now.
        Australia is streets ahead in these areas, but expect the local regressives to try and close the gap.

      • “Gerard May 19, 2018 at 2:25 pm
        I’m prepared to admit and lament the degree of political correctness in this country but show me a country where railway platforms are brimming with conversation, for heaven’s sake (and I’ve seen many). What a ridiculous comment.”

        During my youth, I commuted to college every day, by train.
        People traveling by train adhere to regular schedules. People that see each other every day, day after day; end up talking to each other and cliques form. Cliques that did allow new members to join.
        * We met at bars after school.
        * We met for dinners.
        * We got together for sports events, especially shared sports.
        * One day I was surprised when my train mates discussed working on their birthdays. Three out of four of us shared the same day. Later we added a fourth when the conductor, who often sat with us during his quiet moments, turned out to share the same day. All of us were treating our birthday as a normal day and either working or attending school.
        During the latter part of my career, I commuted to work via train every day for over ten years.
        Occasionally, I’d join a carpool, but usually dropped the carpool for one reason or another.
        One of the major reasons was failure to have 3 commuters, out of six members with two maybes; HOV lanes required 3 riders in a vehicle.
        Those days, I took the train, anyway.
        I joined and became friends with many train riders. We’d meet at the station, talk to each other and look out for each other.
        * We often met outside of work schedules sharing dinners, picnics, sports events, weddings and even auctions.
        * Talking about work was a no-no, unless the topic was major news. One day, traveling to Omaha, Nebraska from Washington DC, I ran into another member of our train family at the luggage claim. We laughed about the travel schedule coincidence and even managed to have dinner together one time, at the hotel.
        * Several times, I joined loud and boisterous groups, fun is contagious; laughter attracts other riders.
        For several years, our group filled half of a train car, with half of those folks boarding the train at it’s first platform; the rest joined us as the train stopped at other stations.
        * Grumpy people would get angry and very overbearing about our activity, and we’d laugh, loudly. Those folks tended to be nasty at all times of the day, not just mornings.
        * When the train had problems or got stuck along the way, we’d share solutions to our group problem of getting to work. Just as friends help each other out, whether at work, home, church/temple, sports competitions and activities, etc. etc.
        When work sent me to Europe, I noticed that the Paris stations had groups of people laughing and talking.
        Train platforms are often lively places with friends greeting and talking to friends. Loners are loners wherever they are.
        People who despise strangers intruding, playful banter, discussion, jokes and other people sharing the train ride often fail to notice the many small groups in close discussion, or they hate those others who enjoy friends and friendship; no matter where they are.
        It’s all about one’s own personality.

      • “Latus Dextro May 19, 2018 at 8:20 pm
        “Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet.”
        Hyperbole.
        Off the cuff, the Ministry of Truth in North Korea, MSM UK and EU, MSM New Zealand, MSM USA, MSM Canada give Australia more than a very good run for its money.”

        “MSM USA” is not able to censure or silence the American people.
        Outside of facebook and twitter being anti-conservative, or SJWs or wacky antis’ clogging comments or flooding certain MSM news stories; there is no restriction on free speech in America.
        That a newspaper is blind to positive conservative news or blind, deaf and dumb regarding liberal progressive bad news is driven by that particular news source ownership; not government.
        Bad actors are bad actors. Violent and/or overtly aggressive anti-Trumpers are the ones getting disciplined, fired, incarcerated for thuggish acts anti_Trumpers perform.
        There are plenty of honest news outlets and sanity driven comment threads. Leaving only the lazy, gullible and wilfully blind people, in thrall to liberal progressive news outlets.
        Ratings for many if not most partisan liberal progressive news outlets keep plummeting. Eventually, simple economics will force a correction; even when when despotic billionaires try to control the news.

    • Betcha JCU have their hands out bigtime for a slab of the 500MIL our stupid PM announced the other week for Reef reserach.

  2. Perhaps anyone out there who is a hiring manager could let them know that you will not be giving consideration to any job applicant with a JCU degree from the last ten years until such time as they show themselves to actually be a university rather than an indoctrination center. Make it known that their students will be unemployable anywhere except at the government and environmental NGOs.
    Alums should send a letter letting them know that no further donations will occur until such time as the current administration is sacked!

    • Academia will one day be seen as a bad point in a resume. People will lie about it, claiming they went to a univ only for the booze and party and girls (or guys) and never went to a single class, when they actually went to all classes and got excellent grades.

    • +1 We should be doing this with any University that promotes politics or punishes for scientific beliefs. As well, we should get businesses to support these efforts and make a stand. A list is appropriate and should be circulated. Time to take the offensive.

      • Yup. My three time alma mater is just beginning after three years of them flying down to solicit a major gift from me to understand that Some years, more than from one of the three schools. For the third year in a row (always treating them to lunch or dinner) , I have asked whether they had yet fired Naomi Oreskes? I gave them always the same specifics as to why. Just like JCU, it is now their problem, not mine. My money votes with my feet.

    • “OweninGA May 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm
      Perhaps anyone out there who is a hiring manager could let them know that you will not be giving consideration to any job applicant with a JCU degree…”
      That could be considered discrimination in Australian employment law if the applicant ever found out there was an unofficial policy against candidates with degrees from JCU.
      Either way it’s a disgusting way to be treated by an organisation, supposedly a place of learning. This is very common in Australia.
      Unfortunately, I am in no position to donate. I wish you all the best. Please keep WUWT up to date with progress because I know we won’t hear anything approaching the truth in the Aussie MSM.

      • correction
        we will hear NOTHING at all about this from msm or aunty abc
        it will be utterly ignored

      • Really an odd law as the evaluation of credentials is part of the hiring process. If the credentials don’t meet the job requirements, and JCUs public behavior indicates their degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, then one does not evaluate the candidate as qualified. Seems pretty evident that if you hire a JCU credentialed researcher you are getting someone who “settles science” by silencing any opposition. That would not be conducive to long term profitability of a company and thus would be something to “discriminate” against.
        But you are probably correct, the practice of English common law everywhere except the USA has drifted far from its roots. Even in the US, the unions have managed to override the common sense features of common law with socialist blather. In the rest of the former British Empire, socialism has so contaminated the common sense of the common law as to make it unrecognizable to an 18th century practitioner of the law. The case could be made that the degradation of common law is the proximate cause of the collapse of the British Empire (not saying it is the strongest case). The lack of anything like English common law is a large part of what has held back the development of the rest of the world.

      • I would have thought that discriminating on the basis of the credentials and reputation, or lack of reputation or credentials of the issuer of a degree is perfectly legal. There are plenty of pay for a degree institutions all around the world, that sell use less degrees!

    • As he is making the claim, he can’t file a countersuit against himself – that would be JCU’s option. However, he can, and presumably has, made a claim for damages as an integral part of the case.

      • I hope he’s named individuals too, as this seems to be a catalyst for waking people up to reality.
        Are Court documents public in Oz, as they are here, even if you have to use a service like PACER? If so, it would hardly be a strong case against for releasing public documents to the public.
        Based on lost salary (ten years?) this wrongful termination could have some big additional damages.

  3. The up/down/”back” radiation greenhouse gas energy loop of the radiative greenhouse effect theory is pencil on paper, a spreadsheet cell, a “what if” scenario and NOT a physical reality.
    Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses.
    Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.
    And with a snap of the fingers and “Presto!!” the bazillion dollar global climate change fantasy is suddenly unemployed.
    Must be why nobody is allowed to talk about this possibility. Not newsworthy enough? Or too far outside the fake news narrative?

    • Doesn’t the CO2 below intercept the back-radiation from above as well. Sorry, not included in the theory.
      Radiation flow and collisional energy exchange flow in a gaseous atmosphere should only be thought of as a big giant mystery.
      The molecules are colliding with each other and the surface 7 billion times per second. Now multiply 7 billion by the number of atmospheric molecules (1.1 X 10^44) and then make that happen every second (86,400 seconds in a day) and then make that happen with the number of photons coming in from the Sun each day (1.6 X 10^40) and the number of photons leaving the Earth every day (8 X 10^40).
      There is Zero chance of understanding that system or making a model of it.

      • Anything can be modeled. Even things that can’t exist. You just need enough parameters.

      • Bill, we make models of that sort of thing all the time. The trick is that you don’t try to model the base physics. We don’t have a Matrix that can run it.
        You model the system as a flow using bulk calculations. You can’t possibly calculate how all the water molecules in a river will behave, but you can trivially calculate how fast it’s flowing. This does have limitations, as you need to have a model for each interaction. And the formula must be derived from observation of how the bulk behaves. However, it can be done.

      • I agree with the numbers. And add to that all the different weights at different elevations and temperatures of the air acting upon itself,and where on the globe under what thickness of atmosphere and which solar inclination it all is, all causing different pressures and changing the frequency of collisions, of molecules of different sizes and mass.
        Then add water. . and spin.

      • Here is the difference between Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.. Stephen Hawking believed in global warming. Richard Feynman would have destroyed global warming in a 2 page treatise. Richard Feynman not only did his physics as thought processes; He actually worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, the making of the atomic bomb. He was a giant. I believe that the date was no coincidence that James Hansen went before Congress in the summer of 1988 to “warn” of global warming. He had to wait until Richard Feynman died of cancer in February 1988. He knew who Richard Feynman was and he knew that Feynman would have destroyed him if he was still alive when Hansen gave his talk to Congress. Unfortunately today there is no great physicist of Feynman.s stature to stand against the group think of global warming.

      • Further to my post. I looked at a website list of the top 49 scientists living today. It was top 50 but Stephen Hawking died. On that list there are 4 who are expertise either in quantum physics quantum chemistry or theoretical physics. I emailed them all to get their thoughts on global warming. I will report the results.

      • “its modelled all the time.
        successfully.”
        Always amusing to see Mosher make dumb comments. What “success”? What does that mean in this context? Which models, run once, have any skill in forecasting? I can run my three line climate model, with its two assumptions (sensitivity to increased CO2 and feedback effect) and be “successful” – I just have to run all the possible permutations of my two assumptions. One of them will produce a “successful” forecast. So what?
        An example: CO2 goes up x. Sensitivity is 0.01 degrees increase in global average temperature per x. Feedback is +5%.
        Global average temperature if CO2 goes up by x = 0.01 x (1+0.05)
        To get my two assumptions your massive models do maths to loads of assumptions, but that doesn’t make your models any more accurate than mine.

      • Friends,
        With his usual expression of doctrinaire falsehood in place of veracity and reality, Steven Mosher says of the radiative greenhouse effect (RGHE),
        “its modelled all the time.
        successfully.”
        The absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’.demonstrates that the models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality. Their only “success” is in generation of computer games that promote a political ideology.
        The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is warming at altitude that is between two-times and three-times the warming at the surface in the tropics. It is clearly explained by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Chapter 9 of IPCC WG1 AR4 and specifically Figure 9.1.
        The IPCC Chapter can be read at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
        and its Figure 9.1 is on page 675.
        Importantly, the text says,
        “The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models.”
        The Figure caption says;
        “Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
        (a) solar forcing,
        (b) volcanoes,
        (c) well mixed greenhouse gases,
        (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
        (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
        (f) the sum of all forcings.
        Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”
        The tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is the big, red blob that is only seen in Panels (c) and (f) of Figure 9.1.
        In other words, the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of “well mixed greenhouse gases” predicted by the PCM models the IPCC approves. And that effect is so great that the models predict it has overwhelmed all the other significant forcings.
        But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).
        The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models “successfully” model climate change and the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.
        In other words,
        IF ONE BELIEVES THE IPCC THEN THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS AS EMULATED BY THE CLIMATE MODELS.
        However, the reason for the ‘hot spot’ is not unique to anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) warming or “well mixed greenhouse gases” and is as follows.
        1.
        Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.
        2.
        CO2 is also a greenhouse gas so increased CO2 in the air increases radiative forcing to increase temperature.
        3.
        The models assume increased temperature induced by increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of water held in the atmosphere (because of point 1).
        4.
        But water vapour is the main greenhouse gas so radiative forcing is increased a lot by the increased amount of water the models assume is held in the atmosphere as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.
        5.
        The large increase to radiative forcing from the increased amount of water held in the atmosphere increases the temperature a lot.
        Points 1 to 5 are are known as the Water Vapour Feedback (WVF).
        The direct effect on global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the air would b about 1 deg.C. And (according to e.g. the IPCC) the effect of the WVF is to increase this warming to between 3 and 6.5 deg.C.
        Clearly, there are large assumptions in calculation of the WVF: this is undeniable because the range of its calculated effect is so large (i.e. to increase warming of ~1 deg.C to a warming in the range 3 to 6.5 deg.C).
        One of the assumptions is how much water vapour is held in the atmosphere and where it is distributed. Large effects of the WVF are induced by assumption of large increase to water vapour at altitude.
        The major radiative forcing effect is at altitude in the tropics because
        (a) long wave radiation is from the Earth’s surface,
        (b) emission of the radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature,
        (c) the surface temperature is hottest in the tropics, and
        (d) cold air holds little water vapour.
        Temperature decreases with altitude and, therefore, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour decreases with altitude. So, small increase to temperature with altitude permits the air at altitude to hold more water. And, therefore, enables WVF at altitude.
        The increase to WVF with altitude causes largest increase to radiative forcing (so largest increase to temperature) at altitude. And the radiative forcing effect is strongest in the tropics so the largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics.
        This ‘largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics’ is the ‘hot spot’. But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
        This could be because
        (i) the assumption of WVF is wrong,
        or
        (ii) the calculated increase to radiative forcing of CO2 and/or water vapour is wrong,
        or
        (iii) the calculated ability of air to hold water vapour is wrong,
        or
        (iv) something else as yet unknown.
        Whichever of these is true, it is certain that the absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is conclusive evidence that
        Climate models fail to represent observed climate changes.
        Or
        There has been no global warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
        Or
        There has been no global warming from any cause including “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
        In other words, climate models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality, and their only “success” is in generation of computer games that are used to promote a political ideology.
        Richard

      • Alan, it’s interesting that Hawking studied at Cambridge whilst noted atheist Fred Hoyle was championing the Steady state universe as the consensus theory.
        How times change

      • Would people PLEASE stop talking about “photons” as if they were real elementary particles. They are not.
        They are an invention of the human mind to try to help explain certain “lumpy” observations in experiments with electromagnetic radiation. Get back to talking about e-m waves and it will help enormously.

      • When an N2 atmospheric molecule absorbs energy (which it most definitely does through collisional energy exchange), it NEVER emits that energy.
        How’s that for a greenhouse effect. 78% of the atmosphere NEVER emit energy away from the Earth after they have absorbed it. And throw liquid N2 onto the floor and watch how fast it absorbs the energy from the floor, rest of the air. Within seconds, the entire liquid N2 pail will be at room temperature within 2 seconds.
        Now explain how N2 is treated in a climate model. They assume it plays no role whatsoever. Completely wrong. N2 dominates the greenhouse effect but it is built in as Zero.

      • “There is Zero chance of understanding that system or making a model of it.”
        Accurately modeling the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere is next to impossible. But you can model ideal gases by statistical mechanics. Maxwell and Boltzmann did it in the 19th century without solving the Navier-Stokes equations.
        “Now explain how N2 is treated in a climate model.”
        It’s treated as an ideal gas. N2 molecular collisions largely determine air pressure.
        “N2 dominates the greenhouse effect but it is built in as Zero.”
        N2 is not a GHG
        http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

      • “Unfortunately today there is no great physicist of Feynman.s stature to stand against the group think of global warming.”
        While not of Feynman’s stature, these reputable physicists are against CAGW:
        Freeman Dyson
        Iver Giaever – Nobel Prize laureate in physics
        Will Happer – Professor of physics at Princeton U
        Fred Singer – atmospheric physicist
        Richard Lindzen – atmospheric physicist
        Chris Essex – theoretical physicist
        Steve Koonin – theoretical physicist
        Sallie Baliunas – astrophysicist
        Nir Shaviv – astrophysicist
        Henrik Svensmark – astrophysicist

      • Mosh,
        What an Idiotic answer – Of course it can be modelled, I can model Time Travel too, or teleportation, or existing in two places at the same time but that doesn’t make them reality. Climate models are no more reality than time-travel is. Indeed climate models break energy conservation at almost every interface except TOA and that alone makes them impossible.

    • “Steven Mosher May 18, 2018 at 6:37 pm
      its modelled all the time.
      successfully.”
      ….if this is what you call success

      • Yes like most things in Climate Science you just play with the definitions, success could well mean it runs to completion without a program fault or it gives the answer 42 … it’s Climate Science and anything goes.

      • It strikes me that IPCC model “success” is defined by IPCC “confidence,” which if I recall correctly for the important bits, runs strong at a notional 95% “confidence.” Inadvertent conflation with a statistically significant 95% CI is entirely intentional. It is the UN MO, seen elsewhere with UNFCCC defined “Climate change” and “climate variability” and UN ECOSOC defined “civil society” … the latter begging the question, if you don’t happen to be an accredited member how are you described … “UNcivil?” There’s an irony in their somewhere.

    • Nick, you are mistaken. Everybody CAN talk about it, it is just that you have to choose carefully WHERE to talk about it.
      There is some really amusing nonsense all over the internet apparently from people with PhDs (or better) who talk about back radiation, black bodies, photons,GHG, etc, etc.
      I’m starting a scrap book of cuttings of this SH1T for the benefit of my grandchildren. Also collecting books on both sides of the argument. This is monumental history in the making and we are only at the start of it.
      But DO keep mentioning the points (i.e. No such thing as GHGs, etc) on WUWT, there is a good sized group on here who do KNOW and it is growing despite the “squeaking” from certain quarters.

  4. Can’t Peter Ridd up the stakes by suing the University for slandering his good academic name? The President or chancellor’s job should be on the line and they should be inviting serious financial penalties. Also, the alumni should be asked if they approve of this behaviour.

    • Dunno Aus law, but if like the US (where I am a licensed attorney) that generally follos UK common law with some unique evolutionary tweak since independence, then YES. Big time.

    • Defamation laws in Australia are very tricksy – the truth does not set you free.

      • Yes, note that one requirement is that the defamer publish the defamation. I am not sure that happened – However publish does not mean to the world, if the Dean sent an e-mail to staff about the dismissal impugning Peter’s character or reputation then that is sufficient to establish defamation.

      • bobl – the press release at the end of the head post seems to cover publishing the defamation.

    • You don’t defame someone just for firing them, you are guilty of wrongful dismissal. The remedies for a successful case is Reinstatement or Monetary compensation. Compensation is always higher if the employer won’t reinstate because it carries a penalty component.

  5. The JCU desperation is palpable. Lets all contribute and make this legal battle part of the climate endgame. Steyn is hung up in DC against Mann, this is not.

  6. I love your final sentence Anthony. “Because they are in the wrong, JCU will, in the end, be forced to capitulate. Let’s make them miserable using every legal method available”.
    And might I add, hope that all costs are awarded against JCU.

    • In unfair dismissal proceedings parties have to pay their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome.
      The exception is under the Fair Work Act 2009 a successful party can seek costs against the other party if that party caused costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission in conducting the matter.
      In other words so long as the JCU and it’s lawyers act in a reasonable manner there is no basis to be able to claim costs regardless of the outcome.

      • However, if JCU have defamed Mr Ridd and that claim forms part of the legal suit then substantial damages and costs can be awarded

      • “In other words so long as the JCU and it’s lawyers act in a reasonable manner there is no basis to be able to claim costs regardless of the outcome.”
        The reasonableness of the dispute appears evident, and it would be shame if Peter Ridd were not rewarded. This is not only about unlawful dismissal, there is some email snooping, blackmail-like censure, and finally, a huge amount of claims that necessarily increase the amount of costs in court.

  7. Done.
    A real university is supposed to encourage diverse ideas, not suppress the ones they disagree with. Sadly, instead of being of Institutions of Learning the world’s Universities are degenerating into Instruments of Propaganda.

    • That was before the advent of post modern science.
      Now the experts declare what the truth is and persecute anyone who doesn’t genuflect quickly enough.

  8. In a fight between Jennifer Marohasy and James Cook University, I would give Jennifer Marohasy a huge edge because of her intelligence and persistence. The effort by WUWT and the crowd-funding for this fight are inspiring. I would love to see JCU severely mauled in Court.

    • Me too. I want to see these Marxist goons made an example of. Time for the academic thugs to be taken down in a manner which will demonstrate to all that the people are coming to take their Universities back.

    • Go to the bottom, below the picture.
      The word CLICK is there. Click on it to contribute.
      Yes, it could be better advertised than just the word CLICK.

      • rd50
        May 18, 2018 at 3:21 pm
        Yes, I agree that maybe Anthony could have a more visible donate button. Anyway, another donation made towards this noble cause. Hasn’t JCU got better things to do with their funds?

      • To Alastair.
        Yes, the word DONATE has now been added after CLICK.
        Hard to say why JCU would do such without being in Australia.
        Nevertheless no university should do this.

    • Free speech died in Australia when they redefined it to include any ‘Offense’ taken.

      • AND the decision is LEFT TO THE “OFFENDEE” TO ADJUDICATE ~!!
        There is NO APPEAL……………automatically GUILTY !
        We don’t YET have “hate-speech” defined as such
        BUT here we have a RELIGION that is regarded as a RACE
        so you can be accused of “Racial Vilification” ( which is defined in some Act ! )
        if you DARE to mention any REALITY……sorry……..NEGATIVELY MENTION……
        …..sorry………any PARTICULAR religion !

    • Take note that ABC and SBS banned open honest debate, first, and did all they possibly could to stymie, degrade and poison public, political and scientific debates ever since.
      That’s the odious public-funded media muck who’ve enabled and emboldened JCU to try and get away with this.

      • they didnt take enough funding OR remove enough of the top staffers who keep pushing the warmist pc and touchyfeely pap theyr drowning us all in!!
        as a longtime listener of 30yrs or so I am more often disgusted and angry that informed or entertained
        the only reason its still on is its advert and crap music free, and every now n then a decent program manages to get by the censors.

      • The well known Dunning Kruger effect is,– If you’re really stupid , you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are . Could this be the real problem with the ABC/ SBS ?

    • Yes Trudeau gave a speech 2 days ago in New York lumping us AGW skeptics in with genital mutilation practitioners. The reality is that even though genital mutilation is a horrid practice it cant be stopped. I would close down any mosque in Canada that doesn’t have at least 1 speech per month condemning the practice.
      As to us skeptics, Trudeau’s speech means that he is scared of the polls. Governments use polls hundreds of times a month on various topics. So of course Trudeau has been polling on global warming skeptics probably every month. The polls show that every month the number of skeptics have grown, The latest polls show 33% are skeptics of global warming.

      • Alan, Would you not agree that “rationalists” and “rationalism” provide a more accurate depiction of those who have doubts about the validity of much of the CAGW dogma than do “skeptics” and “scepticism”?
        ra·tion·al·ism
        /ˈraSHənlˌizəm/
        noun (definition)1. a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response:

      • Yes. I found the self-contradiction in the speech outright scary. Trudeau asks everyone to be tolerant on what he believes in and then turns around and rants about man-made climate change as being case closed “real”.
        It simply doesn’t get more Orwellian than that. Trudeau and his totalitarian bullies get to decide what is fact and what isn’t. Facts are incontestable and dissent will not be tolerated. They aren’t viewpoints that require tolerance. What clever doublespeak to have your cake and eat it!
        That academics and the media are blind to this inconsistent behaviour (say one thing and do something opposite) in our leaders means that “critical thinking” is in very short supply these days. The Sheeple simply get the leaders they deserve.

      • Of course but that doesn’t matter to alarmists. Us rational observers are infidels to alarmists. My own sister who has a post doc degree in biochemistry wont even talk aboutt it.

  9. The Australian University system could be downsized to 10% of its current size and we wouldn’t see any ill effects. Even then it may still be too large.

    • I believe that there is sufficient data – if we look in the right places – to show there is a correlation between the growth of JCU and global warming. Perhaps it isn’t anthropogenic after all just James Cook ..agenic.

    • I , with my classmates were given a tour of Adelaide and Flinders Unis in the early 70s, the idea was to get us wanting to sign up i guess, after highschool
      for me at least it put me off higher ed entirely and i quit n got a job.
      even Hindley street back then didnt have that many weirdos n druggies hanging around

  10. Friedman18, biggest liberty event in Australia opens May 25-27th this year. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend, but I hope someone raises this issue at the event – this issue should be of huge interest to Australian libertarians.

  11. When Tim stated the documentation link doesn’t work I think he was referring to the first link listing the additional JCU allegations. It doesn’t work for me either. Can anybody get that repaired?

  12. There are too many universities chasing too few elite students for too little money in these times of economic prudence.
    Without a diversity of opinion within the university there is no economic case for its funding.
    Perhaps Australia should (fairly) sack Peter Ridd by sacking all the rest as well.
    James Cook University has failed.
    Close it down.

  13. As an Australian I am appalled that our universities should come to this and JCU is by no means the only one. My son has just started at uni as a mature age student after several years in the workforce. He has already figured out that he must not express certain ideas because that will automatically have him marked down. thankfully he is not at JCU which would be too much to take. Public money is used to fund these universities. They have an absolute responsibility to encourage academic freedom. How pathetic are the academics at JCU that they cannot construct an argument if they disagree with PEter Ridd. Instead they have to sack him. Losers!

    • The thought police are also out in force at American universities and colleges. And in state and federal government. Skeptical state meteorologists have been purged.

  14. We all have to be hearing the alarm bells ringing when speaking the truth has dire consequences. The ability to derive an income is a person’s most valuable asset. To have it taken away for speaking the truth is disturbing.
    At the Sydney Institute event with Dr Jennifer Marohasy and Professor Peter Ridd, a question was asked – which is more insidious-discrimination based on race or discrimination based on exercising freedom of scientific thought? Interesting that the question was not allowed-shot down, even though the questions were headed in this direction.
    Bottom line- Australians MUST stop voting for political parties that allow this sort of VIOLATION of free speech. They must be punished for taking our freedom of speech.
    As the CINO s (conservative in name only) have become effectively the same as the socialists in a 2 pp system where we are compelled to vote for one of 2 parties that are the same, we must become part of the poloitical process by joining the parties that have been infiltrated by traitors.

    • high treason
      Take cold comfort, in that you are not alone. The UK is exactly the same these days.
      Government policies are based on minority pressure group activities, undermining the premise of democracy.
      We were told by our ‘conservative’ (Republican) party that new cars will all be EV’s in 2040 to appease the green minority pressure groups.
      Fixed odds betting machines in bookies shops are to be reduced from a £100 maximum bet, to a £2 maximum bet. Many shops will close and many people made unemployed. This to appease a small group of liberal anti gambling campaigners, do-gooders by any other name. I will add that I don’t like gambling, but I’m not prepared to condemn anyone who does.
      Smoking was deemed unacceptable, so it was dubbed anti social and priced beyond reach of many, namely, the poor. Again, liberal do-gooder pressure groups operating under the banner of ‘prevention is better than cure’ and the NHS. Consequence? The only thing that caused a mass change in smoking habits was vaping, guess what they’re going after now?
      Booze is next, with a minimum pricing regime introduced in Scotland by the insane SNP, again, hurting no one but the poor. It”s coming to the rest of the UK soon, supported by minority groups who maintain the majority must be controlled, because of the drinking habits of a small minority.
      Road safety campaigners had sleeping policemen (road humps) installed all over the country. They contribute nothing to road safety, but increase car damage, increase fuel consumption, restrict traffic flow and hinder emergency services. Thankfully, at least one London Borough has started ripping them up, but only because they increase atmospheric CO2 from cars slowing, and speeding up between them, another minority group influence.
      Government funded charities, who wouldn’t exist without our taxes, are the new unelected QUANGO’s (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation), acting as pressure groups and lobbyist’s for the various initiatives governments want to see enacted……….for our own good!
      By definition, I am a member of the far right, I support the UK Libertarian Party. It has nothing to do with violence nor liberal fascism often dubbed far right. It’s a small, but serious political party devoted to freedom of speech, the freedom to work, and the observance of criminal law.

  15. Happy to donate again!
    The reef salvation industry is predominantly a corrupt alliance of politicians, academics and Government ‘contractors’.
    http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/opinion/great-barrier-reef-funding-a-positive-but-harebrained-wild-goose-chase/news-story/7298f6f4d57a7dcfd529b79528f7d0b3
    THE ability of governments to exhibit breathtaking brain-deadedness is only matched by their ability to pluck money from nowhere – and only for projects that suit them.
    The most recent virtue signalling attempts to appease activists are the $30 million Palm Island compensation payouts and the $500 million slush fund for the Great Barrier Reef.
    At least with the Palm Island compo, the recipients have expressed begrudging gratitude and there is hope we can all move on.
    But with the reef funding, the very people the Federal Government tried to appease have come out en masse in a display of ungrateful petulance worthy of a spoilt two-year-old.
    World Wildlife Fund, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Stop Adani, and the Climate Council all turned up their noses.
    They’ve trotted out completely unproven claims of human-caused climate change as the reason for their sulking.
    They say the $500 million is nothing because it doesn’t address Australia’s paltry 1.3 per cent contribution to global emissions, which are causing climate change which caused recent bad coral bleaching.
    It has already been shown that the bleaching occurred in two of the most severe El Nino weather patterns on record, and now that La Nina conditions are here, there hasn’t been another bleaching event.
    This $500 million is a positive but some non-green sectors have also raised an eyebrow because the bulk of it will be used to address water quality issues, which is code for more vilifying, costs and restrictions on farmers.
    “Brain-deadedness” – a word I picked up from my first editor – comes from politicians’ acting contrary to their own reports.
    I’ve written multiple times about the 2015 Managing Water Quality in Great Barrier Reef Catchmentsreport by the Queensland Audit Office.
    Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said the $500m will partly be used to kill crown of thorns starfish and address fertiliser run-off which causes COTS outbreaks.
    But the 2015 report states there is no proof farm run-off causes this, it’s just a theory – a theory which doesn’t stack up when COTS outbreaks also occur off parts of Western Australia where there is no agriculture.
    The report also admits that water quality targets imposed on farmers can’t be achieved, no matter how closely managed they are. Don’t politicians read their own reports? If they did, they’d realise this money could be put to far more practical ends.
    North Queensland marine biologist Walter Starck has written extensively on the “reef grievance industry” and the need for scientists to constantly find threats to the Reef that, of course, need more funding to address.
    On COTS, he writes: “Erratic population booms are inherent to the reproductive strategy of starfish and are well-known in various species all over the world. In the recovery process (after severe weather) the fast-growing branching and plate-like corals tend to overgrow the slower-growing more massive species. The preference of COTS for these faster-growing forms is probably important in the maintenance of coral diversity.”
    The other way to look at it is that we’re spending millions to interfere with nature by killing predators of coral, but doing absolutely nothing to remove predators of people – ie crocodiles. Where are the animal activists protesting for COTS protection?
    As for farms polluting the Reef, marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd says more water flushes the Reef from the Pacific every eight hours, than what reaches it from land in a year.
    But scientists such as these who don’t jump on the gravy train, barely get a look-in for government funding and media attention, and they will be threatened with losing their jobs.
    It should also be noted that the $500m is on top of the feds’ $2 billion “Reef 2050” plan. These are huge sums based on questionable science, and which aren’t appreciated by protesters. This is even more proof that activist groups simply cannot be paid off, because to stop protesting means they have no reason to exist.
    It’s time governments adopted a “take it or leave it” attitude to activists rather than doubling down with more taxpayer money and hare-brained vegetation management schemes that penalise farmers, banning plastic bags, and renewable energy crusades that cost us a fortune.

    • “The reef salvation industry is predominantly a corrupt alliance”….it is 100% corrupt

    • Warren Blair
      ” … But with the reef funding, the very people the Federal Government tried to appease have come out en masse in a display of ungrateful petulance worthy of a spoilt two-year-old. World Wildlife Fund, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Stop Adani, and the Climate Council all turned up their noses. …”
      —–
      They are playing politics in a bidding war, i.e. they have this much in the bag, but they believe Labor will win next year at the Federal level, and they can lever much more money out of this yet, by playing off the Libs (who are just cynically pork-barrelling here anyway) against Labor.
      There can be no doubt Bill Shorten will buy them off with over a billion $$$, if that’s what it takes. It’s not his money, who cares, if he becomes PM.
      And the filthy suppuricating greenie.orgs know that.
      The reef is just their prop for an endless misappropriation of public funding. Australia’s systen is rotten to the core, we are getting scammed for billions by these international organised criminal-gangs, parading around (in front of complicit sycophantic TV media) as those who caaaare, soooo much.
      About how much money they can scam via BS about a perfectly healthy dynamic great barrier reef.
      (and boneheads like Obunmer played into it too)

  16. Another step down the road to ignorance by our universities. Unfortunately, this one is not as funny as the ANU (Australian National University) climate science brigade, claiming death threats which disappeared when officials went to look!

  17. Be aware that it appears the GoFundMe is in $AUS which means for every $.75 US you get $1AUS so it’s a good deal 🙂 to boot!

  18. $100 flung from the Great NorthWet. (It’s a long throw from here to AU!)
    Here’s hoping Dr. Ridd can apply some legal ‘waddy wallops’ to the anti-science numbskulls at James Cook University!

  19. Not only does Ridd need to get his job back but all those responsible for him losing it need to be dishonorably discharged from theirs and be publicly shamed.

  20. This behaviour is par for the course. Another smaller issue running at the moment is that another staff member from JCU is fighting the organisation. He volunteered to assist in a reef mapping exercise and while doing so was severely bitten by a shark on the arm. He is up for some rather large medical bills, but as per JCU’s tender mercies, they have not assisted him because due to an internal review they decided he was a volunteer. They also have threatened legal action against him for him trying to get a freedom of information request on the original investigation. https://www.gofundme.com/bitten-by-shark

    • Voltron, not sure if I can contribute to the bitten by shark thing, but can you get a message to them? As a member of the academic staff at JCU some years ago, I was well aware of their arrogant disregard for WHS (Workplace Health and Safety) laws. Students working in the metallurgy laboratory, carrying crucibles of molten metal, no proper overalls, aprons, footwear. condensation dripping off the walls and ceiling. One drop in a crucible and someone could have been killed. They claimed they were not a workplace. If they threatened legal action over an FOI action then they haven’t changed, just got worse. I did an FOI against them for a mess they got one of my sons into. One document they produced was obviously forged , eg correction fluid marks all over it, unreadable signatures etc. The clerk at the magistrates court said it looked like something a five-year old would try. This might get picked up by moderators so I’ll save it elsewhere. You can contact me by clicking on my name above, or via my website tropicdesign.net.au

  21. So JCU has taken a page from Stalin and ‘disappeared’ Dr Ridd? Seems to be a message there somewhere. So much for treasuring diversity of thought.

  22. Front page story at the online The Australian newspaper this morning (paywalled) written by Graham Lloyd (Environmental Editor often writing on resource and climate issues).
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/marine-science-rebel-peter-ridd-sacked-by-james-cook-university/news-story/805ecb22cee6b4d34c5634799c1d5936
    “Peter Ridd has been sacked by James Cook University for speaking to The Australian and breaking a gag order to ­expose disciplinary action being taken against him after he criticised the quality of Great Barrier Reef ­science.
    He was also found to have broken an order that he “not directly or indirectly trivialise, satirise or parody the university” after he sent an email to a former student with the subject line “for your amusement”.
    Suspending him from duty last month, JCU deputy vice-chancellor Tricia Brand said Professor Ridd had engaged in serious misconduct, including denigrating the university and its employees.
    Terminating his employment, Vice-Chancellor Sandra Harding said he had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that misrepresents the nature and conduct of the disciplinary process through publi­cations online and in the media”.
    “You have repeatedly and knowingly breached your obli­gations to maintain the confidentiality of disciplinary processes,” Professor Harding wrote in a letter to Professor Ridd. “You have repeatedly and wilfully denigrated the university and your colleagues, and in doing so damaged the reputation of the university.”
    In taking the decision to sack him, Professor Harding said she had not been influenced by Federal Court proceedings taken by Professor Ridd against JCU.
    Professor Ridd responded by lodging new legal documents with the Federal Court. He said he would fight the sacking alongside 25 charges behind JCU’s “final censure” of him last year.
    After already raising $100,000 from international donors in one day, Professor Ridd has turned again to the public for support.
    “JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me,” he said.
    Professor Ridd claims he had been censured because he had “questioned the reliability of science coming from some of our most prestigious organisations who are claiming that the GBR is badly damaged”.
    “All I am saying is we need to check this ‘science’,” he said.
    JCU told Professor Ridd the allegations against him did not relate to academic freedom or free speech. “The university has made it clear to you that it is not concerned that you have expressed a scientific view that is different to the view of the university or its stakeholders.
    “The allegations relate to your alleged conduct which appears to demonstrate disregard and disrespect for the university, for its ­employees, your co-workers and appears to be contrary to lawful and reasonable directions provided to you by the university.””

  23. Gladly donated…again. The Thought Police must be fought while we still can…
    “From The Age of Big Brother”
    From the Age of the Thought Police
    From a Dead Man………Greetings.”

  24. I don’t think he got fired for his views. He got fired for his lack of collegiality towards people in his own dept, critiquing them with hearsay rather than proper scientistic data, and doing it in newspapers rather than the literature and meetings where this stuff is usually fought out. Sounds like a real jerk.

    • Doh! How did we miss it? The lack of proper scientistic data, that’s what was missing! It explains EVERYTHING!
      /sarc <= for the humor impaired.

    • Universities usually do not fire people for being jerks. That would leave them with such a diminished staff that half the classes would have to be cancelled.

      • Not so. When your activities diminishes your academic duties and those of your colleagues you will get fired.

      • Sounds more like the university received both political and economic pressure to fire him.

    • Would John Forbes Nash ever had his Nobel Prize (a real one) if he had been judged on ‘collegiality’?

  25. I’m in again too. Let’s hope that this time JCU have bitten off more than they can chew.

  26. “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.!!! ” – Mark Twain
    ==========
    Unfortunately all I can offer is encouragement, and a bit of experience.
    Do your homework, lawyers know the law, not the technical details that might win the case.

  27. However, based on the growing complexity of the case..

    It’s what the endless bucket of funds allows JCU to do and is primarily the modus operandi of all warmist organisations these days – unfounded and unproven shotgun allegations to wear down one’s opponent.

      • Well, I can’t speak for “the people”, but certainly I could have donated more. I didn’t because there was no need. It was crystal clear to me that the goal would be reached with or without my contribution. I just wanted to be part of it.

    • Kleinefeldmaus on May 18, 2018 at 10:09 pm
      “I know that crocodile Dundee is revered in Oz”
      —-
      No so much, it was a real stinker, I was hoping Hogan would do a reprise to, “The Adventures of Barry McKenzie”, with the opportunity, but in LA. No such luck, it was as lame as can be—so parody away.

  28. Reading through the dismissal letter, I realized that this University is an “ENTERPRISE” not an academic public institution. No one should expect any scientific research that does not contribute to their bottom line.
    As such, scientific articles from this university are advertisements and should be subject to consumer protection laws in your state. Once there is a retraction of any paper, individuals residing in USA can sue JCU in state court for misleading advertisement.
    One example is the famous plastics paper. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/02/28/journal-investigating-earlier-work-by-author-of-discredited-fish-microplastics-paper/
    A small claims court application may yield a few thousand dollars towards supporting Professor Ridd.

    • Indeed it is a company and here are the details from ASIC (australian securities and investment corporation)
      Name: JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY BRISBANE
      Registration number: BN19707873
      State of registration: Queensland
      Registration date: 6/01/2006
      Lets see how much money these bastards have.

      • Actually JCU have been squealing a bit in TV media of late about falling student enrolements and the long-term effects on the financial position of JCU, based apparently on expectations of continuous stready enrolement growth that hasn’t panned-out as hoped (can’t imagine why).
        So they seem to be far from financially secure, which may explain their behaviours and peak-sensitivity to defend the Uni rep, and the dead ‘n deader myth and perpetual hysteria campaign about the Great Barrier Reef’s claimed apparently unstoppable demise, which has been such a never-ending magic-financial-pudding so far.
        Their rumours of the GBR’s death have been greatly exaggerated, you see.
        So I think we’ll find they’re not so cashed-up, they’ve been slowly bleeding money, and enrollments, and will pay a crippling price-premium for this attempt to avoid disagreeable public voived observations and data, via shooting the messenger, attacking its own fearless scientific staff member(s). They would rather double-down and pluck-out the offending observing eye of disinterested science, and hope they can sail through the purge(s). But the purged geos won’t go quietly!
        As Popes have repeatedly found out, actual scientists don’t go quietly, you have to embrace what they’re telling you is the actual case, or lose bad, because repeatable observations have always won over believers and opportunistic sychophants, who actually knew better than that.

  29. A key indicator of truth and real science is the funding sources. On the Alarmist / Socialist side there is big government, non governmental organization, politicians, PACs, billionaires and other oligarchs. On the Skeptical/ Freedom side there is grassroots GoFund me campaigns and thousands of small donors.

  30. This is of course about sending a message to others.And I am afraid even if the university loses they are unlikely to get their job back. Best case, settled out of court , some HR BS about learning lessons. Having doubled down the high-ups have to much face to lose for any other result.
    None of this is about the science or good academic practice.

  31. I suspect that James Cook University is very anxious to protect its source of funding for the modestly named ARC* Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University (JCU).
    *Australian Research Council (fund providers).
    Its Director is Prof Terry Hughes (JCU) with whom Prof Ridd has indicated some very valid differences in the scientific analysis of the state of the Great Barrier Reef.
    Hughes was convener of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium in 2012 in exotic Cairns (Queensland Oz) where his agenda was clearly exposed and wherein a consensus of thousands was already documented even before the five-day event started.
    They partied here: http://www.icrs2012.com/Default.htm
    See more on this in my post at WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/six-easy-steps-for-saving-the-coral-reefs-for-our-grandchildren/

  32. Let’s not forget that the world is facing a crisis in many respects, overpopulation, climate change, violent migration, etc. and it is clearly heading towards dictatorships. Let’s just look at what government it will be for Italy. That is why we can be happy to use these tools now to respond to those who respond slower to the situation.

    • Mihaly …………Can YOU please rephrase your comment.
      I don’t understand what you are saying. ” PLEASE EXPLAIN ! ”
      “The World is facing a crisis : Overpopulation ! ( No. The growth rate is falling and adjusting )
      Climate Change ! ( Nothing unusual about that….it just DOES ! )
      Government in Italy ! What has that to do with James Cook University and Peter Ridd ?
      and your final sentence has me completely stumped !
      “That is why we can be happy to use these tools now to respond to those who respond slower to the situation.”

  33. Yet another tale of (as ever) left-wing climate zealotry. Refuse to debate, refuse to engage, attack and discredit the opponent, ad infinitum. Rinse, repeat. It’s almost as if these people are afraid of the truth.

    • Looking around the western world today it appears to me that the leftist/marxist institutions that now substantially comprise modern academia are “trivializing” themselves. They deserve to be ridiculed, laughed at and ignored in many instances. Unfortunately, Professor Ridd needs to fight this one for a lot good of reasons, societal, professional and personal. I am in for $500.

  34. I am concerned at what recent JCU grant money will be used for.
    JCU researchers are going to “restore” the reef by planting one type of coral, which will prevent the seeding of multiple other types of coral. The reef is an incredibly diverse environment. It won’t be after JCU finishes with it.
    JCU researchers want very large sums of money, to genetically modify the coral. They want to engineer strains that will be resistant to heat. Who knows what the unintended consequences of the genetic modification will be.
    JCU marine science researchers, funded by the Australian Federal Government, are getting truly scary. Source The Australian newspaper.

  35. The current fascist pandemic disease in academia is not limited to just climatology and closely related sciences.
    I “borrowed” this short quote from “Mises.org”:
    Economists who reject this standpoint are suppressed. “Economists have maintained this narrow range of methodological and political commitment through their control of academic journals, hiring, and teaching — as well as through the informal enforcement of community norms.

  36. Just why is it that Australian Universities seem so intent on eliminating dissent from what they perceive as consensus? This is not simply climate related either – though that is one. Remember Marshall and Warren who were similarly pilloried and denied funding and even rights to publish over their (then considered ridiculous) belief that the bacterium helicobacter pylori was the cause of peptic ulcers.
    They were of course proved right, were reinstated and later won a Nobel Prize.
    Such is Australian Science.

    • Actually it’s a sign of insecurity, a sign that they lack confidence in what they profess to be their belief. If they sincerely believed the garbage they excrete it wouldn’t worry them what others think or say about it. Attempts to eliminate dissent and heap opprobrium on dissenters are the ultimate proof of an insecure intellect and a guilty conscience.

      • Bingo!
        However, this is about a complaint, or claim, of personal actions contrary to professional interests of certain coral marine-science colleages.
        Many have a fair idea who the main renowned coral guru (et al) is that they’re alluding to.
        Well I’ve seen that coral guru in action (many times), when he was a guest-speaker to a North QLD conservation group meeting where there were four visiting Japanese marine biologists, to hear his presentation.
        But instead of giving his usual blub (he was once my lecturer) he saw the Japanese visitors and instead launched into an attack on Japanese cultural attitudes and Japanese marine biology’s failure saying that they had completely concreted their entire coast line and killed all the prior corals, and near shore communities (and since the 2011’s great earthquake we know why they concrete the entire foreshore). Then he launched into how they’d killed all the sharks in the north-west pacific, they were entirely gone, to sell the fins to China.
        The Japanese visitors were sitting front and centre and they were clearly getting agitated, but being respectful still said nothing, as they were further humilitated.
        Then said coral guru explicitly and bluntly said that there were, in his opinion, just two things Japanese tourists were interested in, Scotch and prostitutes (the visitors were couples btw). And that now that they’d destroyed their own coast line, they now had to go to Hawaii and the Great Barrier Reef, to pursue the same things. And that they had no respect at all for the reef, rainforest, water quality, or environment, etc.
        That was not the talk these Japanese scientists had expected, they apparently expected a professional insightfull presentation about corals from a genuine expert. I was really shocked by it, so I can only imagine how the Japanese felt.
        So it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black here with respect to complaints about relative inappropriate behaviors, while acting as a representative of JCU’s professional marine and coral research staff.
        He did it without hesitation because he always got away with doing it, no one ever challenged him over what he said, or did. And apparently this was anything but an isolated instance, but it was one instance which I saw first-hand (others I only heard about).

    • Corrigenda :
      I have recently met with Barry Marshall and also Ian Plimer ( at the same conference )
      AND BARRY MARSHALL SAYS HE IS STILL HAVING HIS FINDINGS DISPUTED by some !
      and this is 11 years AFTER he and Robin Warren were AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE
      FOR MEDICINE. How is that for “unhealthy scepticism ” ?

    • “…Australian Universities seem so intent on eliminating dissent…”
      From Wiki: In 1983 they submitted their findings so far to the Gastroenterological Society of Australia, but the reviewers turned their paper down.
      From an unrelated incident 35 years ago, that’s your conclusion? Bias?
      You need to get out more.

    • Clueless as ever.
      You need to show that his conduct was bad, but that is too hard for you………………

      • Wow, that’s clueless.
        I do not need to show his conduct was bad, but you need to read what the university has written.
        But that’s too hard for you. (no need for random ellipses)

      • Why are you assuming that Scott is on one particular side in this? He simply posted useful data. It makes interesting reading.

      • Mike if you and him bothered to read the article, you would have found the Conduct of Conduct there. So why post it in the thread without a comment, then when I commented on it, he replied:
        “I do not need to show his conduct was bad, but you need to read what the university has written.”
        Like I say he didn’t read the post well, it was already posted!
        Now he runs away when I asked when he can answer my question.

      • Koontz
        **I do not need to show his conduct was bad,**
        Sure you do, but you can’t, like you could not on the other blog, right?

      • Tommy,
        The code of conduct that Scott linked is quite long – much longer than the article above. I also followed the link to the previous Watts article and it’s also much shorter than the code of conduct. The “fired-details” article also doesn’t include the code of conduct.
        What article are you referring to when you say, “Mike if you and him bothered to read the article, you would have found the Conduct of Conduct [sic] there.”?

      • Mike Slay along with Scoot Koontz tells us that the code of conduct is quite long, but can’t tell us what alleged violations can be found in it, that matches with the University allegations written against him.
        Do better next time.

      • Tommy,
        I stand by my statement that Scott’s link to the whole code of conduct is useful and informative. How else are we going to interpret whatever ridiculous BS JCU tries to come back with? The’re sure to torture the English language mercilessly.
        But without knowing the whole code they are torturing, we cannot understand, much less anticipate their response.
        Meanwhile, your comments are nonsensical. You said, “Mike if you and him bothered to read the article, you would have found the Conduct of Conduct [sic] there.” When challenged to make sense of this you replied with some orthogonal BS about how I, “can’t tell us what alleged violations can be found in it.”
        Of course I can’t. What did I write that inspired that silly question?
        Your jumping to unjustified conclusions has led you down flights of imagination that are both insulting and embarrassing. Learn from this.

        • What I learned is that YOU and Scott never showed what possible code of conduct violations are found in the link. It is a rather BORING long winded reading that will quickly end the few visits it got. It is a lot like posting the link to the IPCC summary report over something that is really found in a paragraph on page 5.
          If you want that link to be more useful, show at least a code of conduct violation quote or two, otherwise many will never look for long in the link.

      • Tommy,
        I don’t think there are any “possible code of conduct violations.”
        But I had to read the entire code of conduct to know this.
        That’s why the link is useful.

    • Tommy, why did you run away? Are you still here? Tommy? (this is a science alliterate tactic.)
      Conduct of Conduct is not there in the article, nor is the Code of conduct.
      He was given many chances to not be such a wanker, and then he went full denier and embarrassed the university. I guess deniers don’t want businesses to have and enforce rules.
      Tommy, still there? Tommy?
      [???? .mod]

      • No I didn’t run away, have a life outside this blog to live.
        It is clear that neither YOU, Mike Slay have read the allegation files, some of them are ABSURD! such that they object him use of gofundme drives.
        The University kept bringing up the code of conduct mantra in their claims against him, but some of their allegations against him are so absurd, that it has the appearance of a kangaroo court feel to it.
        Try reading them for yourself:
        https://platogbr.wordpress.com/fired-details/

      • The irony of you calling Tommy science “alliterate” (sic!) is off the scale.

      • Tommy,
        Yes I have read those allegations, and I agree they’re absurd.
        Why do you think I’m not on Peter Ridd’s side in this? You leaped to that conclusion totally based on you’re imagination.
        I challenge you to quote anything I wrote that supports your fantasies.

        • You were supporting Scott who made it clear he thinks Dr. Ridd should be gotten rid off. His sly attempt was a way to make it appear that Dr. Ridd was indeed violating something. He never did acknowledge that the allegations were absurd, heck his later postings shows his increasing hostility to Dr. Ridd.
          You don’t know him like I do, having seen his behavior elsewhere, he was banned for obvious trolling at Tony Heller’s blog.

      • Baloney. I’m not “supporting Scott.” You just fantasized that. Go back and reread the beginning of this thread. You don’t know me; you just started assuming stuff about me right from the get go.
        This is about a case that will be GOING TO COURT. You claim that reading the actual code of conduct that JCU claims he violated isn’t worth the bother. I sure as hell hope his lawyers don’t take that attitude.
        You need to learn from your two errors:
        1) You don’t see any need to study the data. This is the signature left wing attitude on climate change and the very thing this website exists to oppose. By ignoring the details of the issue at hand, you choose to be uninformed. Most of the posters here are the kind of folks who do their homework before spouting off.
        2) You jumped to conclusions based of feelings instead of facts. This is typical of people who don’t do their homework. It comes across sounding like you think you can read minds.

  37. Looking at that policy document he seems to be the absolute epitome of the principles. Even down to the disclosing of wrongdoing and protecting those that disclose it. Also look at bullet points 4 and 5 of Principle 1!

  38. Canadian Prime Minister gave a long speech to NYU graduates recently. The entire wonderfully orated speech was a rant against tribalism and the lack of tolerance in our society (be it gender, race, religion or anything else).
    In closing, Prime Minister Trudeau stated that man-made climate change was real to the roar of the approving students. It seems both he and the students are totally blind (or too stupid) to see their own narrow-minded intolerance over what are acceptable reasonable opposing thoughts or views. It’s settled as far as they are concerned. They all would have no qualms about lynching Peter Ridd!

    • To add to the above. Whether a man is man or a woman is a woman or something in between is debatable as far as Trudeau is concerned but man-made climate change is case closed settled scientific fact. The irony and inconsistency is extreme but only pure fascists will not see this as they are blinded by the ideology of I know what is best for others.

  39. It is JCU that violated their own ethics policy that states they should “value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth;”
    But simply because Ridd publicly provided evidence that contradicted the catastrophic claims of some colleagues, claims that were essential to keep funding rolling in, JCU sought squash academic freedom and prevent criticisms and challenges to dubious claims, and thereby derail the search for truth!

    • “We Aussies” didn’t get rid of Abbott. Regardless of that, the best you can say about him is that he wasn’t a total moron like the incumbent or the incumbent’s opponent.

      • The solution is for ALL patriotically inclined Australians to join a political party to reform them from the inside.
        I am not in the Liberal party myself (in one of the minor conservative parties) but urge others to join the Liberal party to flush out the traitors that have been infiltrating for the past 40 years. NSW is the traitor state. According to my insider sources, just 600-1,000 people in the right branches in NSW is what it would take to get in the right delegates to chuck out the traitors.
        As for our votes, we must not give a first preference vote to any party that plugs the PC garbage. We MUST not give power to any party that blissfully allows freedom of speech to be crushed. We need leaders, not appeasers. Voting for the traitors is voting for losing that most fundamental human right- freedom of speech.
        As Australians should be aware, the 2 major traitor parties (Turncoat liberals and Labor) signed in to (unfair) law the 2 PP system where a vote is informal if it does not preference one of the 2 major parties, like they have some God-given right to power. As they are almost exactly the same, we effectively have a One Party State unless one of the minor conservative parties can somehow get 50% +1. This is highly unlikely, especially with all the mainstream media smear .
        Time to wake up. To paraphrase Plato- one of the pitfalls of being too clever for politics is that you find yourself being ruled by your inferiors. 2 votes a year and $99 membership per year is that (small) price for doing your part.
        By becoming part of the Australian political process, you too can become a beacon of liberty (or a beaconess or LGBTQIAZP beacon of Liberty.)
        “All that is required that evil may triumph is that good men shall do nothing”-Edmund Burke.

        • As much as I revile Turnbull and his turncoats and will never vote for them again, the fact is that almost all the politically correct garbage in this country and almost all the clamps on free speech have been introduced by the ALP. The pathetically pusillanimous and gullble Liberals just allow that rot to continue while they’re in office, never turning back even the slightest bit of the Labor-Green program to transform this country into a fascist state and the citizens into its slaves. The very concept of a Discrimination or Human Rights or Privacy Commissioner is the antithesis of a free and just society, an utterly repulsive oxymoron. Give someone a job like that and naturally they’re motivated to find infractions of political correctness over which they can exercise their putrid authority, as are jaundiced individuals to report being “offended” by them.

      • Give somebody the right not to be offended, and they’ll take it as a license to be offended, at everything.

      • As are all of the socialist democrats…. and President Trump just keeps working his agenda and succeeding.

    • Roger it was a coup and the people elected the plotters at the following election because Labor was pathetic.
      A ginger group has formed within the Coalition and have put the PM on notice that he has until Xmas to wake up or fall on his sword.

  40. You may want to know that JACU in Portuguese is synonymous with a very stupid person.

  41. Well then, there you have it. Of course it’s not what Watts has written.
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/marine-science-rebel-peter-ridd-sacked-by-james-cook-university/news-story/805ecb22cee6b4d34c5634799c1d5936
    JCU told Professor Ridd the allegations against him did not relate to academic freedom or free speech. “The university has made it clear to you that it is not concerned that you have expressed a scientific view that is different to the view of the university or its stakeholders.
    “The allegations relate to your alleged conduct which appears to demonstrate disregard and disrespect for the university, for its ­employees, your co-workers and appears to be contrary to lawful and reasonable directions provided to you by the university.”

    • That link does not go to an article, but rather to a subscription sign-up page. Not surprising, really.
      Judging by the quotes given by Scott K., however, I would be inclined to suggest that “disregard” and “disrespect” for the university could easily be re-defined to include rejecting flawed conclusions and expressing such rejection in straightforward terms.

      • I guess the quotes were not enough. Judging by your comments, I am inclined to think you wouldn’t read the article anyway, because you are a fan of people who claim all climate scientists are wrong, but never offer any facts to back those claims.
        Knowing what really happened is important. Pretending that he wasn’t warned many times is just silly.

      • Scott K.,
        Don’t judge me too quickly, and don’t judge me incorrectly, as you have.
        Provide a stable link to an article, and I WILL read it.
        I doubt that you have sufficient basis to determine of whom I am a fan. Rather, you generalize with your own fantasies, based on first, shallow impressions of my tendency to question your concept of truth.
        I have read a bit of the detailed correspondences behind this case, and from what I have read, JCU appears to be stretching its definition of misconduct to include professional disagreement, where such disagreement is expressed in straightforward terminology.
        Just because you don’t like the tome of a verbal expression does not give you the right to stretch your definition of misconduct to ridiculous lengths, as JCU has done and IS doing, … digging its hole deeper in the process.
        Professional disagreement is not always nice and friendly, and when serious flaws are being addressed, yet repeatedly ignored, a more colorful (less professionally terse) manner of verbalizing seems fitting. When blatant flaws exist, and everybody still tries to play nice and cover them up, then something is really awry and deserving of a different mode of expressing this.
        I can tell you first hand that I have been the target of professional journal reviewers’ harsh comments disagreeing with points of an article that I wrote. They made no attempt to be “collegial”. They pointed to their disagreement with my facts in no uncertain terms. This is NOT uncommon, therefore. The reviewers had some good points and some not so good points, but they said what they thought based on their professional knowledge. Their tone was NOT friendly. There was an honest exchange and an honest disagreement. I did not accuse them of being unprofessional, just because I found their tone offensive.
        JCU is being a wimpish crook in trying to spin criticism the way they are trying to spin it. If the shoe fits …

      • Nope, that link also takes me to a subscription page to sign up and pay for the newspaper. I’m using Firefox latest version, Windows 8.1
        You’d think a valid story would be more readily available.

      • FROM:
        https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/2018-05-18-amended-statement-of-claim-1_redacted.pdf
        In sending the news.com Email, the applicant:
        a. was acting in a professional or expert capacity;
        b. identified himself using his appointment at JCU;
        c. was not acting in his official capacity i.e. in the capacity of his University
        Appointment;
        d. was participating in a public debate;
        e. expressed honestly held opinions about issues and ideas related to his fields
        of competence;
        f. expressed views that were rational, reasonable and supported by respectable
        scientific research;
        g. did not say or do anything to expressly or by implication, convey that his
        views were the views of JCU or that he was authorised to express them on
        behalf of JCU;
        h. did not say or do anything that was unlawful or that otherwise constituted:
        i. harassment;
        ii. vilification;
        iii. bullying; or
        iv. intimidation;
        of those who disagreed with his views;
        i. did not infringe the rights of any other person;
        j. expressed views that were critical of the manner in which scientific research
        was being conducted and reported by the GBRMPA and ARC;
        k. expressed views that were reasonable in the circumstances;
        l. did not identify any individual staff members of JCU or criticise same;
        m. did not criticise JCU;
        n. conducted the manner of a professional scientist; and
        o. acted in a manner that was permitted by the Applicant’s Rights.

    • I have yet to seek Koontz, or others from his troll factory, provide any evidence other than JCU spin, that Ridd acted in any way that “demonstrate disregard and disrespect for the university”
      So Koontz, if you are to demonstrate any evidence at all that your sniping has any merit in the least, please quote exactly what Ridd said that was worthy of being fired. All you have ever done is quote the university spin, which is absolutely worthless. Once you provide those exact quotes, we can then have a meaningful discussion.
      BTW Ive seen universities protect their professors against sexual harassment allegations that are far more disrespectful and destructive to collegiality than anything Ridd ever said.

      • My account was turned off because Heller knew I was a programmer, and found his simple python app to be something a high school student would receive a C on.
        I was given 12 hours to “back up” my claim, and Heller ran away, poor snowflake.

        • Why do you feel the need to lie, yes he did say you have hours to do it in, but you didn’t even TRY to answer it.
          You could have said I will work on it and reply when ready, but that was never posted, you never tried to take up the challenge at all.
          Meanwhile you posted many times while you ducked the challenge that should have been easy for a computer Programmer to do, heck I even gave YOU the link to his program code, but you didn’t do that either.

        • 12 hours was plenty of time to download the software, you as a programmer could do it in 30 minutes.
          YOU are the one who didn’t try and got shut down for it.

      • Sorry, Tommy. Some of us have jobs. 12 hours on a weekday? Heller scrambled way as fast as he could.

        • But YOU didn’t even try, you could have posted something like this:
          “I will work on it and reply when ready, but that might take a couple days as I have to work this weekend.”
          But you never did that, which destroys your laughable excuses.

      • Well Koontz you have had a lot more time here, and on a weekend, to back up your claims, and you have still failed to do so. Heller clearly saw you are just trolling.

      • “I am inclined to think you wouldn’t read the article anyway, because you are a fan of people who claim all climate scientists are wrong, but never offer any facts to back those claims.”
        What a ridiculous statement. Who says that all climate scientists are wrong? Speaking for myself, my beef against the doomsayers is not that they’re wrong but that they believe they have divine intuition that renders them infallible, divine authority that entitles them to pillory those who have a different view, and a divine right to plunder the taxpayer to fund their parasitic programs of mendacity and exaggeration.

      • “My account was turned off because Heller knew I was a programmer,”….
        You must think you are not only the best programmer…but the only one on Tony’s site….

      • We should respect that the University is bound by its own Code of Conduct, which prevents it from publishing any details of allegations. Welcome to Catch 22. (Of course, that’s the bulk of what JCU teaches).

    • JCU told Professor Ridd the allegations against him did not relate to academic freedom or free speech.
      If you believe that you will believe anything.

      • And Honest John has a car to sell ya. A real steal! Totally not a lemon! Those dents’ll pop right out and that radiator hose just needs some duct tape.

  42. Any truth in the rumour that JCU in true Stalinist spirit have asked for increased funding to build a Gulag For dissenters.

  43. I can empathize with this case but find that some information is not readily available. For one thing, the link to Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s site doesn’t currently work. And no apparent means to reach Dr. Ridd by email. There is a mention of a JCU connection in the https://platogbr.wordpress.com/contact/ page but since he was fired, I’m wondering how one can reach someone who lists only that prior employer.
    I’m interested to communicate as a researcher because there is virtually no first party discussion of ocean pH in relation to this specific coral reef debate. I’m curious if all of the scientists on both sides of Dr. Ridd’s dispute agreed to not disagree about ocean acidification. If that were the case, it might be germane to know.
    Or is there a nuance here? Or did I just miss that topic in all of the reading material provided? From what I can tell, there is no direct quote of Dr. Ridd regarding ocean acidification, only others adding that meme to his story. Accordingly, I’d like to know how does Dr. Ridd stand on this meme of ocean acidification, or does he feel it is irrelevant to his case? That would be odd to learn but I wish this particular aspect would be clarified.
    This is Mike Wallace by the way. I’m using an old wordpress id because apparently this site won’t accept my facebook login anymore (“url too long”).

    • Many alarmist add meaningless claims about acidification, whether regards Ridd or coral in general.
      There is no evidence to suggest ocean acidification is harming coral.
      First in order to create enough CO2 to promote photosynthesis, coral lower the pH of their photosynthesizing vesicles to a pH of 4.5. Lower pH enhances photosynthesis!
      Second calcification pushes pH much lower than predicted from any increased infusion of atmospheric CO2.
      Finally, largely due to that calcification effect, most coral reefs exhibit a net ventilation of CO2, so that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a factor in reef pH because the concentration gradient drives Co2 out of the reef.

      • This post should not be buried down here. Surely it should be elevated to somewhere more prominent, along with supporting references.

      • Snakrmania, Good link to Ridd’s paper
        Ridd wrote, “The 14% decline in calcification rate between 1990 and 2005 (De’ath et al., 2009) is prima facie a surprising result because a previous comprehensive study (Lough and Barnes, 2000), using a subset of the data used in De’ath et al. (2009), demonstrated a statistically significant 4% increase in GBR coral growth over the 20th century. In addition, it is notable that a more recent paper on calcification rates on Australia’s north western coastline does not indicate any significant decline in calcification rates after 1990 (Cooper et al., 2012). However, laboratory experiments show that calcification decreases under increasing pH for a variety of reef organisms (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007),”
        The Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007 paper and other alarmists argue that lower pH causes a conversion of bicarbonate ions to carbonate ions and thus reduce calcification by reducing carbonate ions. Although that reduction is chemically accurate, it is meaningless for coral and other calcifiers. No carbonate transporters have been found in coral or other calcifiers. They can no import carbonate ions for calcification.They all depend on bicarbonate ions and all have bicarbonate transporters. Then when they pump in Ca++ they simultaneously pump out H+ which raises pH and converts imported bicarbonate to carbonate ions. That is the mechanism that induces calcium carbonate formation, and the raw material, bicarbonate ions, is 10X more availalble than carbonate
        Papers such as “Coral calcification in a changing World and the interactive dynamics of pH and DIC upregulation” verify that mechanisms and show that, at least within a wide range of pH, coral readily control calcification independently of sea water pH. That calcification imechanism is why Ridd, Lough and Barnes, Cooper, and others do not observe any decline in calcification. And RIdd’s paper demonstrates why D’eath’s methods produced erroneous results that promoted alarmism.

  44. JCU:
    -you have academic freedom, but you are not allowed to freely express an opinion
    -you can’t publicly criticize the science, or the university, however we can publicly criticize both your science and your position at the university.
    -my leaks are ok, yours are not.
    -I can speak to the media whenever I like, you cannot.
    -others can criticize your science, you can’t criticize theirs.
    Something is rotten in the state of JCU.

  45. Something to think about.
    As JCU is largely funded by taxpayers might it not be possible for a class action suit by a group of taxpayers against the JCU administration for the sundry malpractices and malfeasances which appear to be involved in this matter. If such a suit could be presented in a form that would get it past summarily dismissal, the process of discovery could almost certainly be used to expose a whole rats nest of improprieties.

  46. Reminds me somewhat of Pat Michaels and George Taylor. Both were state climatologists … VA and OR. Both run out for their inconvenient views on climate.
    Taylor’s case was particularly egregious. He did great work, is a nice guy, and was totally hatcheted out of Dodge by political forces. Worst was from this climate Nazi … https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Lubchenco

    • She looks familiar.
      Isn’t she the one who posted pictures of herself and some other flunkie burning “climate sceptic” books?
      The attached text implied that “climate deniers” should similarly be burned.
      So the term “climate nazi” would certainly apply to her.

    • A few weeks ago I had lunch with an old friend who disclosed that he was one of forty-two Fellows of the Royal Society who, in 2010, had joined Professor Kelly in writing to the President of the Royal Society pointing out that the Society’s stated position on Climate Change was erroneous.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html
      Since then my friend has been persona non grata at the Society, which continues to spew out misleading information on the subject. (my words not his!). But, fortunately, he is too well-known in his field to suffer from any possible dismissal.
      I wonder how many other, younger, Fellows feel the same way about the Society’s position but are still too vulnerable to speak out openly.

  47. There is one aspect of this case that really disturbs me:
    How is it that the university thinks it can prevent someone from discussing the fact he has been accused of something, and is subject to disciplinary action? He was not even allowed to discuss the case with his wife????
    This is the equivalent to a rapist’s lawyer preventing the victim from talking to the police.
    Of all the flack flying around in this case, this attempt by the university to silence its victim is the most outrageous.

  48. Professor Peter Ridd should first refer his case to the Australian Government’s Fair Work Ombudsman who deals with cases when an employee is dismissed from the job in a harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner.
    Please, can someone tell Peter Ridd he must apply to the Commission within 21 days of his dismissal taking effect, starting the day after the dismissal.
    He clearly has been unfairly dismissed.

  49. Just donated. Main hope is that you make it through all this stress, Peter

  50. I would like to advise the Australian chief government scientist Dr Alan Finkel over this matter but already have a different big issue in with him. Might anyone here be interested in doing so? His email address is in the public domain: alan.finkel@chiefscientist.gov.au
    As more background, (being careful what to say) I suspect that James Cook University is very anxious to protect the reputation of who is described in their 2017 report as “Distinguished Professor Terry Hughes”. He is Director of the modestly named ‘ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies’.
    The ARC (Australian Research Council) provides generous funding for that centre, which heads a list of 31 centres or facilities in that report. On the other hand, Prof ‘Ridd’s ‘Marine Geophysics Laboratory’ has no mention and has a diminutive website compared with that of Prof Hughes.
    Prof Hughes made his agenda clear back in 2012 when he convened 12th International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns where he had a consensus originating in the USA endorsed by over 2,000 even before the 5-day event opened.
    Hughes was well pleased in his closing address and party here: http://www.icrs2012.com/Default.htm
    Have your vomit bag handy
    Another money spinner was with various field trips at over $2,000 per person extending up to three weeks that must have been nice, and presumably funded from the 80 countries involved. http://www.icrs2012.com/FieldTrips.htm

  51. Part or me wants to donate. Another part is saying “hold on, what really happened/is happening here?” I should take the time to research it thoroughly but cant find the energy. One needs to know all the facts before making judgment. All I hope is that justice prevails
    m

    • We seem to have green activists on one side claiming that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is being impacted by lots of human-caused sources, including coal mining, global warming, etc., etc. On the other side we have folks who live out on islands on the reef, on the spot, claiming that everything is normal and are concerned that the negative publicity is deterring visitors to the reef. Ridd’s main beef seems to be that he believes poor research is being implemented by the university on this subject.

  52. And, of course, they have said that Ridd is “not collegial”.
    This “not collegial” accusation was thrown at Norman Finkelstein (when he was denied tenure at DePaul University) and at Steven Salaita (offer of position withdrawn by University of Illinois).
    It looks as though it will be a very useful weapon to be used against academics who say the wrong things.
    https://www.aaup.org/report/collegiality-criterion-faculty-evaluationhttps://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/SotoKannan.pdf

  53. Donation to Peter Ridds defence fund sent.
    Go to his “go fund me page” to donate.

  54. Doing the rounds are attacks on China’s Belt and Road as the “riskiest environmental project in human history” , based on a press release issued by Australia’s James Cook University on May 15, which plays up a so-called study by a team of researchers from Australia, China, Germany, Portugal, Canada and the U.S. titled “Environmental Challenges for the Belt and Road Initiative,” published in the journal {Nature Sustainability}. From the release’s citation of the WWF, it is clear that this “call for rigorous strategic environmental and social assessments” on the BRI so that it does not “promote permanent environmental degradation,” is essentially a repackaging of the November 2017 attack on the BRI issued by Prince Philip’s genocidal WWF.

  55. Was it a Royal Decree that JCU implemented? After all at least 1 Aussie Government was dismissed by the crown : in 1974, when the Queen sacked democratically elected Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, after he and his government announced that they intended to “buy back the farm” from the Queen’s raw materials cartels (companies like Rio Tinto, in which she is the single-largest individual stockholder)—to reclaim control over the nation’s resources, and to build a nationwide scheme of infrastructure.
    Notice the correlate : China’s BRI infrrastructure program, the largest in history. The crown cannot dismiss that governmen, but is trying to dismiss, sorry impeach, President Trump who got on very well with China’s President.
    Looks like the good Professor has got into Royal trouble. I hope Australians realize this.

  56. I wish you all the best of luck in the world Professor. I really do. Go get ’em. Don’t let them use you this way.
    Something stuck with me–the money. In Politics as in war–follow the money. How much has JCU taken in public funds to “fight for the reef”? So much so that 1 professor going against that grain shattered their carefully constructed foundation. He cast doubt on them for the arrival of the next money train. Turned the light on as it were on their shadow show.
    Follow the money…you want your job back? Make the correlation by following the money–expose the corruption and since this is public funds (I am assuming public universities in Australia have to publish budgets), you can follow the money. Find the puppet master behind the marionettes, the silent one but he leaves a paper trail.
    The personal attacks are the first sign of bullshit and a weak argument. We all know that here. The minute the forum degrades into personal attacks–someone just hit home….hard. You hit home…keep knocking and my best to you!!

  57. Didn’t Hitler see certain intellectuals as adversaries and critics that needed to be sanctioned?

  58. If a wrong is committed against you, then a very reasonable response is to reveal the wrong outside the circle of influence that commits the wrong. Otherwise that very wrong disables you from addressing it.
    Consequently, if accusations of misconduct were invalid, then orders to keep those invalid accusations of misconduct confidential were also invalid.

    • The exact same process applied to a woman alleging sexual harassment (you must now raise the protest internally/do you talk to anyone/we may publicly comment the issue, you may not) would enrage the feminists and all liberals.
      Where is the left to protect (at least the process rights of) the little guy against the big faceless entity?
      Nowhere to be seen, as usual, when the victim doesn’t belong to their protected groups or when it challenges the narrative.

  59. I hope that Australia has better judges than we have in Canada. Our federally-appointed Justices are, with rare exceptions, a disgrace. They routinely practice extremist bias, incompetence and even petty corruption.
    The Climate Change Business is replete with corrupt scientists, academics, NGO’s, civil servants, politicians, etc.
    The Politics Business is replete with corrupt politicians, civil servants, NGO’s, lobbyists, fundraisers, etc.
    And the Law Business is replete with corrupt cops, Crown prosecutors, lawyers and incompetent and corrupt judges.

    • So why would you think we here in Australia have it any different?
      Remember that we started as a penal colony, and nothing much has changed since.

  60. Unfortunately , “THEY” are still in the ascendancy !!
    “THEY” are NOW driving CHANGE to companies BASED ON THIS CLIMATE DELUSION.
    In the BATTLE to WIN HEARTS AND MINDS “we” still have a lot to do !
    for example:
    “Rio Tinto’s climate change resolution marks a significant shift in investor culture”
    “This week’s resolution at Rio Tinto signals a coming of age for investor engagement on climate change in Australia. Shareholder resolutions have clearly become an important part of the toolbox for civil society in Australia seeking to influence corporate decision making on climate change.”
    “Anita Foerster, Senior Research Fellow, University of Melbourne and Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Environmental and Climate Law, University of Melbourne. Originally published on The Conversation”
    .
    I KNOW ! DON’T TELL ME !!
    ” The Conversation”. is a Marxist promotion site ………BUT it DOES INFLUENCE a lot of
    people who STILL BELIEVE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC BRIGADE
    and their position on CAGW.
    This is partly why the fight that Peter Ridd is fighting HAS and WILL HAVE great CONSEQUENCES
    IF A WIN and a vindication of his views and position can be achieved !
    ps. Thanks to ALL those generous donors too !

  61. “This action is seriously wrong, and the mark of a collection of cowards engaged in group-think. It sets precedent for the death of free speech, free ideas, and freedom to interpret science where the data leads you.
    Because they are in the wrong, JCU will, in the end, be forced to capitulate. Let’s make them miserable using every legal method available. – Anthony”
    Happy to send them an email saying I think their actions are unconscionable. Who is the best person to send it to and would any other readers here feel happy to do the same?
    Note Anthony is wrong on the capitulation, Australian Universities have a very unhappy track record of stubbornness. Miserable is the next best outcome I guess.

  62. JCU did the same thing to that other great scientist, Prof. Bob Carter. Peter Ridd will win this and the turkeys at JCU will pay. Have donated. Balance just now: $$229,790.

    • Yes, good work. What I’m afraid is that the lawyers pick good money, but persons responsible are not punished.
      I submitted 100, thinking of submitting some more because there is still 30,000 missing from the goal.

      • 253 out of 260! Wow! in such a short time, this is well done. Just the last 7k to go and we’re there!

  63. How ironic, Peter Lindsay (JCU Deputy Chancellor) the subject of sanctions by the LNP in Qld, winges to the media about a kangaroo court judgement on his right to free speech,then gets his knickers in a knot, and resigns from the LNP (boo bloody hoo). All this while at the same time endorcing these same standards against Peter Ridd. Wake up P.L. and exercise your fiduciary duty within an institution that relies on Commonwealth funding.
    There are “none so blind as those who will not see” … beyond the dogma…. and double standards.

  64. Today BBC Alarmist PR prog about coral reefs
    BBC Radio4 have a new daily 10 part Alarmist PR prog : Climate Change And Me
    The first episode aired today : Prof Callum Roberts of “Environment” department at the University of York.
    (I think he has another episode coming as series feature 5 scientists)
    The PR trick used was a to drown you in a storm of words.
    … so that you only have chance to pick up on SENTIMENT and walk away with that.
    I suspect dark PR professionals like GreenHedgefund Bob were involved in the honing of that storm of words.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3c3sh

  65. JCU is a living fossil from the Dark Ages and the various times and places for religious intolerance of science.

  66. In the press release, the only concrete charge I see is “deliberately publishing comments that were untrue,” yet no examples. Does anyone know specifically what “comments” are being referred to here?

    • Probably they claim that the QC was adequate, but that is more a claim than a fact.
      I can see they do have one point, and one point only. Ridd critisized bad science in public, and they claim that was against the code of conduct. We’ll see how the court thinks about freedom of expression vs. university orders.
      Less than 2k to go. You are awesome people!

    • I was about to say that, but you beat me to it. Generalization without instantiation is typical of a smear.

  67. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/peter-ridd-the-new-hero-of-climate-science-denial,11352
    “For more than a decade, Ridd has been happily criticising the science linking dangerous climate change to greenhouse gas emissions and the science showing the impacts of humans on corals.
    Ridd has also repeatedly, over many years, said that the impact of agricultural runoff and water quality on the health and growth rate of corals is overstated.
    But his employer, James Cook University, initiated its own action against Ridd after he had criticised specific organisations at his own university in media interviews, saying they could not be trusted. This, the university alleged, went against the university’s code of conduct.
    So this is not about Ridd’s “freedom” to say what he wants but is about an alleged breach of the university’s code of conduct — whether you agree with that code or not.”
    Some great info regarding how Ridd’s concerns were already addressed, and his continued random insults (without backup) at the organizations that do back up their replies.
    Ridd is a pure denier. He thinks CO2 is not of concern. You can count the number of serious scientists who think CO2 is not a problem on one hand, and when you look at their bias and sometimes paycheck you can see why they are doing this.
    Not about freedom of speech. It’s as though suddenly conservatives never want anyone to be fired for anything.

    • Code of Conduct or not ……………………IT IS STILL ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
      THAT IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES !
      As a scientist HE has the right to express an opinion about a topic that is in his field AND
      like many of “US” posting on WUWT who are well out of our depth but seeking information
      “WE” also have the right to express our opinions too !
      Your interpretation that “WE” are ALL conservatives and don’t want ” anyone to be fired for anything”
      couldn’t be further from the truth !
      “WE” won’t be happy until ALL these CAGW pseudo-scientists ARE discredited AND FIRED !
      Scott Pruitt , Administrator of the EPA in the US , is doing away with what he calls “secret science”.
      i.e. Science that has not been verified or models without the ability to produce results matching the
      empirical evidence and which are not subject to HONEST open scrutiny by others will NO LONGER
      be able to be used to frame rules or apply restrictions which affect EPA legislation.
      With any luck , someone with integrity will be appointed in Australia to rid “US” of “secret science”
      and it’s dodgy practitioners !

    • Think independently and be gratuitously called a denier and a conservative. Good going, Scott Koontz..
      In fact, if Peter Ridd holds that CO2 is not a concern, he is right. There is no known deleterious effect of CO2 on climate; see here for example.
      Consensus climatologists assert a certainty their work plain does not permit. A climate modelers are not competent to evaluate their own models.
      AGW alarmism represents the worst failure of critical thought in human history. Worst because so much is now known and so much of that has been willfully neglected.

    • I am an atmospheric scientist and I believe the current and future increasing CO2 levels are nothing but beneficial.

    • I think CO2 is not of concern. The deficiencies of that notion are manifold and can be recognized by any capable scientist or student of science.

      • Not having enough CO2 in the air is a concern for all living things. Luckily (and somewhat accidentally) we are replenishing a limited resource by activities that also happen to benefit us in the ways for which they were designed (vehicle travel, cars, trucks, planes, not to mention tractors, pesticides, fertilizers in agriculture, home heating, home hot water, home appliances, and cheap and reliable base load electricity generation). Scientists who think you can simply outlaw fossil fuels without having a proven substitute are the idiots. Scientists who think solar and wind power are already proven substitutes are incredible idiots.

    • Scott Koontz, allow me to refer you to the FULL explanation of James Cook University’s Code of Conduct, outlined in meticulous detail at the university’s own website here:
      https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct
      Every single statement of this code and associated documents applies to what Peter Ridd has been doing by questioning the reliability of research and conclusions in his area of expertise.
      By questioning as he has questioned, he has raised the issues of integrity, transparency, professional accountability and honesty to the highest scrutiny, and THIS is supposed to constitute a breach of the very code that emphasizes these qualities.
      Now Scott, you wrote:
      But his employer, James Cook University, initiated its own action against Ridd after he had criticised specific organisations at his own university in media interviews, saying they could not be trusted. This, the university alleged, went against the university’s code of conduct.
      Yes, this is the allegation, which is a joke, considering what I just pointed out. Refer to the code of conduct, and you will see that his actions were NOT in violation, but in support, of this code. It is the University that is in violation of its own code by not heeding the professional criticisms Ridd offered. When an organization is spouting claims that have not been quality checked, how can you call this “honorable”? When a professional scientist of many, many years of specific experience raises questions about the integrity of the process that produces such claims, and you characterize this act of great integrity as a violation of the principle of integrity, then you are a crook avoiding upholding the very principle you claim to uphold.
      Scott, you continued:
      So this is not about Ridd’s “freedom” to say what he wants but is about an alleged breach of the university’s code of conduct — whether you agree with that code or not.”
      “Alleged”, yes, … but more correctly, WRONGLY alleged. The allegation is INVALID. Read the code, Scott. What Ridd said involved the very qualities and concerns embodied by the code of conduct. He was, in effect, pointing out the failure of the university itself (and associated organizations) to follow this code or failure of the university itself to allow this code to be followed truthfully by its own employees !
      Trying to redefine “violating” the terms of the code to include criticizing the code makers’ own practice of the code is underhanded. It’s like saying, “We expect you to follow the code, but if you criticize how WE follow the code, then you are violating the code.” This is a devious trick, and any intelligent person will see it as a devious trick that defeats the whole purpose of the “code of conduct”.

    • You can count the number of serious scientists who think CO2 is not a problem on one hand, and when you look at their bias and sometimes paycheck you can see why they are doing this.

      http://www.oism.org/pproject/
      You must have an unusual number of fingers on that one hand even if you want to cherry pick who are valid BSc or higher qualified people who signed it.
      The fact that you used the “Denier” word renders you as just another troll….and I am not even sure why I am bothering to post this reply.
      SK, the tide has turned…and you are now on a rapidly losing side of the argument. I hope at some point all you alarmists are held to account…but of course that will never happen. This is because if if the earth were to plummet into a 100 year cooling phase and this whole AGW scare was proved to be false…you would never admit you were wrong and would hide behind the argument that it was the right thing to do given the information at the time.
      I and I suspect many others here used to believe in the AGW scare stories only because we never researched it and accepted science from those who should know. However, now I don’t because I have looked at the data and it just does not support the theory or the predictions and I am happy to admit my mistake and change my mind.

    • When you use the pejorative “denier” to describe those who are skeptical of global warming, everything else you write is meaningless.

  68. It seems that JCU is attempting to (selectively?) litigate that pernicious part of academic politics that Climate Science has wholeheartedly embraced. If I were Ridd’s Lawyers I would demand to see every other example of where they have enforced this rule.
    For background on academic politics and small stakes:
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/

    • Peter wants to send a thank you note to 2,405 contributors. Peter, please don’t. You have more important things to do.

  69. Wish him well – a prime example of how those with expert knowledge are silenced by those who prefer to exploit their own agenda. Science must be protected.

  70. At Oregon State a few years ago, Art Robinson’s kids were both railroaded out of Oregon State – second-hand sanctions against the next generation. This goes on wherever it can.

  71. So, he’s not allowed to criticise ‘published work’! That’s exactly the work that needs real examination and openness to criticism, otherwise any junk can go uncriticised, which also opens science up to being hijacked and bought by well funded special interests – just as climate science has.

  72. “The University has not objected to Professor Ridd’s right to comment on quality assurance.
    However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”
    Holes in this argument:
    ‘The manner in which he has done this’ is part of his right to comment. The university cannot and should not use the code of conduct to stifle his right to comment, even if they don’t like the way he does it.
    ‘Sensationalised’ is irrelevant, whether or not something is sensational or boring is not the issue.
    ‘Critisised and denigrated published work’: also irrelevant: that’s part of his ‘right to comment’.
    ‘demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions” also irrelevant, that’s also part of his ‘right to comment’.
    ‘Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published’, also irrelevant and the real reason they don’t want him to comment, they don’t agree with his views, and only like hearing about academic rebuttals of his views.
    I think he has a case, universities are not like private companies (which they consistently refer to), in that they can’t fire someone without due cause, which also needs to be serious, and I don’t think this is the case. Commenting ‘on his scientific views’ , and ‘critisis(ing) and denigrated published work’ in public does not constitute ‘serious misconduct’.

  73. I wish Prof Peter Ridd the best in this confrontation with JCU. Just a word of caution: It is obvious that JCU dont like your research direction, it is dangerous for their “Great Barrier Reef Business” built on AGW doom and gloom and the flowing heavy ARC grants.
    JCU look like they have been careful to fire you based on disciplinary and Code of Conduct breaches, and they have said so in their press release. You are claiming they sacked you because you “dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef.”
    I am sure you are right, and they have simply used the charges they have chosen to reach their goals.
    But a court case can be lost on such differences, and I note they are specifically saying they do not disagree with your published scientific positions, or claims of major problems with “quality assurance”, meaning scientific reproducability and rigour.
    I remember Prof Iam Plimer lost the court case against the claimed discovery of a fossilised Noah’s Ark on the flanks of Mt Arrarat in Turkey. Prof Plimer was right – it was not a man-made object – but he lost the case.

  74. Voluntary contributions to Prof Ridd’s case raised ~ $100k in two days and now raised ~ $150k in three days ….. writing seems to be on the wall for the global warming cabal. Intimidation is no longer going to work.
    It’s just sad that so many were intimidated and careers destroyed due to lack of resources and awareness of ‘the great warming swindle’.
    Hopefully there will be truth in the saying that …. well ….. the truth will prevail.

  75. Dr. Ridd’s crime was to break a gag order that JCU had imposed on him. The University had instructed him not to speak to anyone—including his wife!—about the disciplinary action it was taking against him, including last year’s ‘final censure’.
    JCU also found that Dr. Ridd broke its order not to “directly or indirectly trivialise, satirise or parody the university” after he sent an email to a former student headlined “for your amusement”.
    Oh dear James Cook Uni’s management is just a trifle thin skinned for a group of “truth seekers”. Jimmy Cook would be spinning in his grave [if he hadn’t been barbecued].

  76. Codes of conduct are a cowardly device used by public institutions in Australia to bully and punish people who buck the system. They are very difficult to defend because they are generally Beyond The Reach of the law and because they are geared in such a way that makes it almost impossible for someone to defend themselves against what are usually vague, unsubstantiated, and often anonymous accusations. Do not think that this is about the science. James Cook University wants to make it about a code of conduct because they know that’s how they’re going to get rid of Ridd. He needs to fight it on the accusations not on the science and even if he loses – I do fear for him on this- don’t think that he’s lost the science case. This is just James Cook’s way of trying to shut him up.

  77. Also isn’t it ironic that JCU chose to put out a presser about Ridd’s code of conduct case? isn’t that a breach of his privacy? Aten’t they breaching the gag orders that they imposed on him?

  78. I guess Dr. Ridd’s work runs counter to work such as Wei et al., 2009? In that work the researcher addresses porite corals.. “whose ability to calcify is highly pH dependent.” abstract at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703709000969

    I find Ridd more convincing, and I need to read more of both. If one can’t count on pH to leave a signature on coral growth, then one can’t count on coral isotopic records to back out the past ocean pH.

Comments are closed.