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.
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.
This one is important. I donated a second time.
Almost there! 2366 donators so far. 2,8k to go.
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
$257.393 now. Almost there!
JCU is a living fossil from the Dark Ages and the various times and places for religious intolerance of science.
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.
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 !
Ridd didn’t call names as you do.
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”.
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.
“He thinks CO2 is not of concern”
Do you have any evidence that CO2 is a concern?
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/
259,498. No, 259,628! Wow people how much I admire you! 2,400 supporters.
Read this too late to help this time. Goal has been reached.
Well done everyone.
Done it – well done everyone.
Peter wants to send a thank you note to 2,405 contributors. Peter, please don’t. You have more important things to do.
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.
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.
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.
“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’.
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.
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.
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].
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.
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?
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.