University Appeal Upheld, Peter Ridd Loses – We all Lose

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website

University Appeal Upheld, Peter Ridd Loses – We all Lose

July 22, 2020 By jennifer

On 2 May 2018, Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for serious misconduct. It all started when he called-out his colleague Terry Hughes for falsely claiming healthy inshore coral reefs were dead from climate change and deteriorating water quality.

Ignoring the first censure in April 2016, Professor Ridd went on television in August 2017 and explained in an interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin why so much said and written about the Great Barrier Reef, including by scientists at the Australian Institution of Marine Science, is ‘untrustworthy’.

The interview was to promote a book that I edited, Climate Change: The Facts 2017. The book published by the Institute of Public Affairs, begins with a chapter about the Great Barrier Reef in which the orthodoxy on Great Barrier Reef science is challenged, in particular reporting on coral calcification rates. In that interview – that contributed directly to Peter Ridd’s sacking – the main argument was, and continues to be, for better quality assurance of coral reef science.

It is a fact that the Australian Institute of Marine Science refuses to release 15 years of coral growth data – because it contradicts the claims of high-profile activists that coral growth rates are in decline. They are not. But the false claims are central to their fundraising strategy. Never mind the truth.

The first finding handed down by Judge Salvatore Vasta back in April last year case concerned the photographs taken in 1994 that Terry Hughes used to falsely claim Acropora corals that were alive in 1890 are now all dead. Peter Ridd had photographs taken in 2015 showing live Acropora and the need for quality assurance of Hughes’ claims.

Judge Vasta found in favour of Peter Ridd and ordered that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.

Peter Ridd took on the institutions, and today lost in the Federal Court. The Judgement suggested his academic freedom was his personal opinion.

It was very significant that Peter Ridd won on the issue of academic freedom: that he did have a right to ignore the university administrators and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and explain how and why important scientific institutions had become so untrustworthy.

The University never accepted that decision by the Federal Circuit Court, and they have never conceded that Terry Hughes was wrong to suggest all the corals were dead, when a documentary has since been made showing them to be alive. Further, they have never supported any calls for the coral growth data to be made public.

Instead, the University appealed, and today the University won in the Federal Court. In the judgement, Peter Ridd’s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘personal opinion’.

It is not Peter Ridd’s personal opinion that the corals are alive, and the Great Barrier Reef resilient to climate change. It is fact. I’ve seen the coral reefs whose health is contested with my own eyes: they are very much alive.

What is dead is academic freedom in Australia.

Universities should be understood by the judiciary as different from other workplaces because it is expected by the ordinary Australian that, on occasions, there will be vigorous debates on important and controversial issues. It is essential that academics can engage in these debates without fearing that the use of plain and colloquial English could end their careers.

Yet today, the university’s appeal was upheld on the basis Peter Ridd was un-collegial in stating plainly that his own university and the Australian Institute of Marine Science are ‘untrustworthy’ because of systemic deficiencies in their quality assurance processes. Further, it was mentioned that Peter Ridd did ‘satirise’ the university’s disciplinary processes in a personal email.

Today’s decision means that James Cook University, and other Australian universities, will continue to crush dissent and sack academics who campaign for the truth.

The truth is that coral reefs are resilient, and despite the fear mongering, refuse to die.

Australia’s universities may now be corporatist bureaucracies that rigidly enforce an unquestioning orthodoxy but it is the case that one day, when the travel restrictions are all lifted, you will be able to visit the Great Barrier Reef and see with your own eyes that Peter Ridd told the truth about the Stone Island corals, while Terry Hughes’ photographs deceive.

****
The feature image at the very top of this blog post is of Premnas biaculeatus, an anemone fish, photographed at a Ribbon reef on the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef in January 2020. There are still so many fish, and so much healthy coral where Terry Hughes has most recently claimed devastating coral bleaching. I SCUBA dived for a week and could find very limited coral bleaching. The underwater footage from this expedition will be made into a feature length documentary.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonym
July 24, 2020 12:09 am

The health is the Great Barrier will prove Peter Ridd’s point, and the Crookedness of C_ook college.

July 24, 2020 12:16 am

This is a real kick in the teeth for Judge Vasta as well. I wonder what he thinks of the appeal.

knr
July 24, 2020 1:32 am

Even in this judgement it is clear that he was right and they were wrong , but that he was ‘impolite’
So much for ‘science ‘

William
Reply to  knr
July 24, 2020 6:53 am

So much for Australian law.

Ron Long
July 24, 2020 3:31 am

This bad turn of events with Prof. Ridd is Upsetting! There needs to be a new University dedicated to Reality, not my feelings are more important than the truth.

ResourceGuy
July 24, 2020 5:39 am

What a barbaric country. Add it to the mostly not free list of countries.

J. C.
July 24, 2020 7:32 am

This is yet another example that courts are a waste of money and time. We all should just agree to a flip of a coin. Political activism in courts is everywhere.

Steve Oregon
July 24, 2020 8:15 am

With all of the left spewing their nonsensical calls for various justice movements (social justice, climate justice etc.) in truth justice itself needs justice.
Justice 4 Justice
And I live next to Portland, Oregon area where lawlessness has become the official means to all Progressive Justice.
What a mess.

Chris Hoff
July 24, 2020 9:51 am

It’s the slow march through the institutions. In the end, it won’t matter how many facts and logical arguments are on your side. All the judges, lawyers, professors, politicians, police, military officers, will be progressives and all wrong thinkers purged out. It matters not how severely reality batters them over the head.

Thomas C Van Eaton
July 24, 2020 10:39 am

I am glad that I sent money to this cause and will continue to fight against censorship when ever I can. I take comfort that eventually the truth will win out.

Len Werner
July 24, 2020 10:44 am

A couple of decades back I attended one of the APEGBC ‘continuing education’ seminars on Contract Law. One engineer asked a hypothetical-situation question of one of the presenter lawyers; she thought for some 10 seconds, and then replied “I think I could win that one for you, but it would take a LOT of money’.

That, plus a few other observations through life, have taught me that the law is NOT ‘The Law’; it is an opinion. And if you have enough money, and/or influence, you can buy and/or obtain the opinion you desire.

It is possible that there is no application or decision of actual ‘law’ here. That said, I think Steven Mosher’s point above requires some serious consideration.

Mickey Reno
July 24, 2020 3:32 pm

This is extremely disappointing. So the gaslighting lives on. It’s credentialed perpetrators bank more and more bad karma, earn more and more of the hostile backlash that must eventually come their way as objective reality diverges from their increasingly ridiculous political, self-serving narratives.

Kr00
July 26, 2020 5:19 am

My question is, if Professor Peter Ridd was employed by the university for his expert opinion on reef science, wouldn’t his personal option be an expert opinion?

Kr00
Reply to  Kr00
July 26, 2020 5:19 am

*Opinion* Typo