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.
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.
Which is why I donated 2K last night.
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.
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.
Thanks Mervyn, I’ll spread the word.
Just donated. Main hope is that you make it through all this stress, Peter
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
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.
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
Ooops!
https://www.aaup.org/report/collegiality-criterion-faculty-evaluation
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/SotoKannan.pdf
“non collégial” (or “non confraternel”) is also the go to accusation for French medical doctors that dare to criticize established, consensus practices.
Donation to Peter Ridds defence fund sent.
Go to his “go fund me page” to donate.
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.
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.
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!!
Added my small donation.
Didn’t Hitler see certain intellectuals as adversaries and critics that needed to be sanctioned?
Envie’ algunos pesos para luchar la lucha buena!!
Si, si!
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.
The Sun Edison fiasco continues.
Note to Australian’s and New Zealanders, This involves UPC Renewables and Longroad Energy Partners.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-05-09/mckinsey-sued-by-jay-alix-over-competition-for-bankruptcy-advice
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.
Australian journalist Tim Blair summed up the likes of JCU and other enviro scammers years ago – “green collar criminals”.
Donation made, hope you win!
$217k+ already!
Donated!
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 !
I’m in again.
Sorry.
Solar activity falls. Galactic radiation is starting to grow, as in 2008 (during the previous solar minimum). Will it reach record values, as in 2009? Everything indicates it. You have to prepare for a large number of thunderbolts.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00965/zr63az93lu76.gif
“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.
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!