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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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/
Thanks for that insight Bob!
I looked at the link http://www.icrs2012.com/Default.htm ” Bob (Richmond) is well underway with his planning and I look forward to seeing you all in Hawaii in four years time.” Party on, dudes!
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.”
Don’t feed the troll!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good to see President Donald Trump was a donor 3 months ago
https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct
Code of conduct.
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)
You didn’t answer my question…..
Maybe you don’t know?
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.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/marine-science-rebel-peter-ridd-sacked-by-james-cook-university/news-story/805ecb22cee6b4d34c5634799c1d5936
I guess rules are for scientists and not deniers.
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/
Down the thread is a strong rebuke of your “spin” for the University code of conduct link:
Jim Steele https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/18/climate-skeptic-professor-peter-ridd-fired-for-his-views-by-james-cook-university-jcu/comment-page-1/#comment-2821998
How are you going to answer him………………..?
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.
There is also an “explanatory statement”:
https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/corporate-governance/code-of-conduct-explanatory-statement
In accordance with the long tradition of the Illustrious University, that statement has been modified May 3, 2018.
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!
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.
JCU,
Peter’s a gunnin’ fur ya.
Rather bad taste given what happened in “another school” yesterday.
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!
Now that JCU has demonstrated its true commitment, it needs to change its logo to this:
Aussies, you got rid of Tony Abbott. Reap your own stupidity.
“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.
The RINO’s are still trying to get rid of Trump.
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.
Done … for the second time.
Ready for the third if necessary.
You may want to know that JACU in Portuguese is synonymous with a very stupid person.
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 …
Try this link, which does open in my browser.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/marine-science-rebel-peter-ridd-sacked-by-james-cook-university/news-story/805ecb22cee6b4d34c5634799c1d5936
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.
I see subscription page too.
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.
Thanks for that, Robert.
I woner what JCU will be able to say in reply….
R
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.
Koontz was barred from Realclimatescience for not backing his remarks.
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.
File complaints against their accreditation.
Any truth in the rumour that JCU in true Stalinist spirit have asked for increased funding to build a Gulag For dissenters.
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.
Interesting! I have a lot to learn about corals. I did also satisfy part of my curiosity through finding a paper by Ridd and two coauthors, which targets that acidification concern: https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/publications/Havecoralcalcificationratesshowedinthelasttwentyyears.pdf
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.
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.
+10
Sent AUS$50
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.