"It is not a simple question". Yes it is. It's a matter of how much we really believe in freedom of speech, and does the freedom apply to all or to only the elites. When you are told something is not simple, or that a matter is 'complex, you are being mugged.

In a land where we allegedly have free speech and freedom of the press?

Academics can say whatever they like or espouse any theory, be it a flat earth or that they were molested by aliens or conceived by parents whilst standing in a hammock?

Except where they have signed up to contractual obligations that limit what they might promulgate or the verified facts and confirmed science is at complete variance with their propagandised patently ideological views?

Academics that use their position to promulgate patent falsehoods?

Have no place moulding the minds of our children!

If what you do or say has consequences you need to own them and move on!
Alan B.

It seems the crux of the matter is not who is right or wrong but the
way it was argued.
I seem to remember reading of famous very antagonistic clashes on
scientific opinion. It might well have an honored history.
Anyway I think it boils down to which result is correct;
One being a survey from an aircraft and the other from divers.

Just coincidentally the same week it goes to the High Court it also
pops up in the China chaired World Heritage Commission a declaration
that Australia has destroyed the Great Barrier Reef.
Hmmm

"Given the importance of the principle of the academic freedom, the burden on justifying restrictions to it should be very heavy indeed. In this case, that burden was not met". As with all disputes that reach the Courts, a judgement is needed and here we are given one, soundly argued, soundly based, and wise. It seems from the judgement that the core issue was one of behaviour. The boundaries of acceptable behaviour are always fuzzy and disputed. Judging breaches is made more difficult in absence of personal observation. If we are directly involved we can make concessions or we can incline to be harsh. Like a good painting we know good behaviour when we observe it. And bad behaviour. On paper Professor Ridd's actions seem unexceptional; his scientific analyses and conclusions were reviewed and accepted by research journals and seem in line with expectations of scientific research in these times. I think the clue is here: "Ridd’s conduct, however unpleasant..". He might indeed be an unpleasant chap. Never having met him I cannot tell. But the case was not about his behaviour or demeanour. It was about academic freedom. Again, I think the judgement of Stone and Forrest looks sound.

I wonder how many of us would still have our jobs
if we went around publicly speaking against the
institutions for which we worked or criticizing
the works of our colleagues disrespectfully?

Not many, I suspect would still have our jobs.

Prof Peter Ridd violated his code of conduct contract.
And the university took the opportunity to sack him.
I imagine he would have been warned quite a few times
before this happened. Yet he was prepared to risk it.

I'm not sure what if any compensation he received for
his sacking - but it was a risk he obviously was
prepared to take - and make a name for himself.

Academic freedom?

Does it truly exist?

Can we all really go off spouting whatever we please under
this guise? Be it a university or any other workplace?
I've worked in universities for many years - and I don't
know of anyone who would dare bite the hand that it is fed
by.

Academic freedom is great in theory. The reality is a bit
different - an anyone will soon discover.

Peter Ridd could see that his colleagues were straight out lying to the public about the state of the Great Barrier Reef. This has been shown to be so by a number of people. Do you think Foxy he should have shut up & let the colleague & the university by implication, publish straight lies about the reef to help increase their research grant funding. Surely there can be no other reason for them lying about a much loved icon

You can check the fact that they were lying by looking at the work done exposing this by Jennifer Marohasy by looking at it in her blog. There she shows the designed to "find nothing" way he examined the reefs around Bowen to claim they were all dead, & again shows the total impossibility of checking bleaching by aerial survey, as undertaken by this so called scientists. Yet he claims he has proven huge bleaching with such surveys.

Do you actually believe Peter Ridd would not be complicit in this fraud if he had not exposed it to the public. Do you think he should have shut up in support of an institution of very doubtful honesty?

Now we find their dishonest claim about the reef are being used by China to attempt to beat us about the head.

The man is a brave champion, & should be supported by every honest Australian. I look forward to your comment after you have checked the facts.

The issue of Peter Ridd's dismissal should not be separated from the fact that he's an avowed skeptic of anthropogenic climate change. No university anywhere should be obliged to employ people with blinkered views which are at complete odds with the overwhelming body of evidence in their particular field. To argue as Ridd does that water pollution and climate change do not threaten the reef is clearly an ill-informed position. The fact that he's a poster boy for the IPA is further proof that his views are highly problematic!

Thanks Bronwyn for reminding us of Professor Ridd's
lack of objectivity - which as you point out would have
been problematic for the university. He's entitled to
his opinions - but not to try to enforce his claims
onto others. Most unprofessional behaviour.

In my world, this is the view.

The unrecognised problem with this topic:
Academics are responsible for the production line of journalists. (Along with all professions). Those journalists are unsuccessful if not tainted by the rainbow ideology, resulting in the assassination of culture and blinkered view of life through Academic indoctrination, then if not compliant to the call, no job.

Moving on to what appears as the expectation I take sides in a disagreement between enemy forces.

I don’t, and I don’t care what skin they tear from each other in their bitch-out.

Dan.

Diver dan,

We will give that all the consideration
it deserves.

The vixen enters the blackberry bush!

Dan

Bronwyn, Foxy,

The first porkie is that Ridd is " an avowed sceptic of anthropogenic climate change"

Ridd was a leading reef researcher a sceptic of other academics publishing "studies" with shoddy research and "results" that weren't supported by the research.

You nailed it in one, Foxy. People who know the truth are being intimidated into silence by fear of losing their jobs. Better to just shut up and say nothing rather than swim against the tide of the academic thought bubble.

Of course, history has shown that some scientists were willing to do just that. James Van Allen was ostracised by the entire scientific community when he theorised that the Earth was surrounded by belts of radiation. The abuse and personal attacks became so severe that he refused to even discuss the mater, even with his friends. To any enquiry he would simply say "We'll see". And he was right.

The idea that scientists are impartial protectors of humanity, and not just people obsessed with public funded research grants, took a real hit lately. The USA's own head of the Health Department, Dr Fauci, tried to hide the fact that it was his public research funds which paid for the research on the Chinese virus now killing millions around the world.

Everything that happened to Ridd was reflected in the Chinese virus cover up. The leading scientist lied, and he was supported by his scientific mates, who are as addicted to public research grants as meth heads to their methamphetamine. One respected virologist from a leading Californian university wrote Fauci an email saying that the Chinese virus looked engineered. But he subsequently retracted his letter. One suspects that he, like Ridd, was pressured by his peers to shut up. The boss of the US Centre for Disease Control was sent death threats about his conviction that the virus was engineered. Not from nutters, but from fellow virologists.

Because this virus has the potential to do to virus research what Chernobyl did for nuclear research. And what Ridd did, was threatening to caste an unwelcome light upon the validity of climate research.

Foxy thinks that just sticking up for what her peer group of academics say displays her intelligence and moral fibre. Actually, it is those with the courage to speak the truth who are the real academics and scientists.

Diver Dan,

And the diver swims in an ocean of raspberries.

It is very easy to believe Professor Peter Ridd instead of the Lefty academics who have saturated the Universities - as have Lefties saturated the ABC & the main stream media - and are best not believed especially as they are also in the thrall of the hoax that is climate change

Shadow Minister

Perhaps you can post a quote of Ridd's which clearly demonstrates his understanding and acceptance of the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Until then, I'll treat your claim of 'porkie' with the contempt it deserves.

Kindly advise me if someone responds to my comment above

So now we know Foxy. Both the CSIRO, & some of our university researchers have been working with the now infamous WHUAN lab on the very stuff, "gain-of-function" research on bat virus, that has caused the pandemic.

They have been hiding this fact for over a year & a half.

How surprising they have been hiding this, & downplaying the probability of the virus being a lab escapee.

Do you now still believe everything these so called scientists tell you, or don't tell you, & us, about their games, & the reasons for playing them. If so you are even more naive than your recent posts have led many of us to believe.

Blind faith in academics will destroy us all.

Good Afternoon Gentlemen,

I don't have the time to argue with you.
However here are two links that speak for
themselves on Peter Ridd:

http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Ridd-questionable-claims-statement.pdf

And -

http://www.desmog.com/peter-ridd/

Foxy step out of your protective shell for once, & go read the results of Jennifer Marohasy's testing of some of the stuff coming out of James cook.

Then come back with your genuine critic of her research, if you dare. If you wont your future posts will be forever tainted by the fact you won't investigate solid evidence showing some of your beliefs can only held by the practice of avoiding solid evidence that they are flawed. Blind obedience to authority is the realm of fools. Remember the emperors cloths.

The ball is in your court.

Hasbeen,

I can see from your post that you have not read the
links I cited. Especially the second link.

Here's an excerpt from the second link:

"The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a group funded
by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing
policy actions on climate change has supported Peter Ridd
by gathering funds to cover his legal costs in the case
he filed against James Cook University."

"Ridd is director and scientific coordinator at the
Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) a group
SourceWatch describes as a front group founded by the
Institute of Public Affairs. Jennifer Marohasy is the
director of the environment unit at the Institute of
Public Affairs, and initially she served as AEF's chairwoman."

"Ridd named Marohasy directly while thanking donors for
his GoFundMe campaign that raised over $260,000 to cover
his legal fees against James Cook University."

So much for objectivity from Jennifer Marohasy.

Meaningless red herrings Foxy.

The only thing that matters is the evidence. Personally I don't give a damn who produces the evidence. If it holds water they have won me, communist, lefty or right radical, if the evidence says they are right, they are right.

You appear to be using this red herring to avoid actually evaluating the real evidence. That is just not good enough.

I like you believed all I was told until Climate Gate exposed the lies & & cheating the global warming mob were using. I still thought it was probably a limited few. I then spent 6 months getting my math back up to where I could follow & understand the facts of radiation absorbance of the materials involved.

It is well proven that CO2 can not perform as the shonks claim. It was bloody hard work for an old bloke who had forgotten more math than he still retained. Now seeing the truth I am disgusted with these people, & myself for ever falling for the rubbish, hence my extreme feelings on the subject, but please spare me the political bull on the subject. Evidence from even a murderer is better than bulldust from a saint.

The vixen runs from the blackberry bush.

Afflicted with the brain of a fox: No match for a fox hunter!

Dan.

Bronwyn,

You are the one making wild and unsupported allegations. The onus is on you to show where Ridd claims that climate change was a hoax.

The crime that Ridd committed was showing that so-called researchers at QU were publishing studies based on bogus research. Much like the Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu.

Any deviation from the progressive dogma attracts cancellation:

"Apparently, eight social media users complained to the RAA about a blog where de Wahls expressed her views about the difference between biological sex and gender. A nervous Nellie inside the RAA over-reacted, removing her work from its shop and the RAA thanked campaigners for bringing to their attention “an artist representing transphobic views”.

Then, after a backlash, the RAA chief executive was forced to apologise to de Wahls on Wednesday for banishing her work, releasing a grovelling statement that said: “We should have handled this better … plurality of voices, tolerance and free thinking are at the core of what we stand for and seek to protect.” As Effie might say, how embarrassing.

De Wahls said the current culture of fear, especially when discussing the difference between biological sex and gender, has parallels with her early life in East Berlin before the wall came down.

After receiving the apology, she said. “I don’t want anyone to be discriminated against. [But] people need to wake the hell up. To me, this was institutional capture. They need to learn to grow up. This is literally the internet running wild and people need to set boundaries.”

De Wahls was right to laugh at her critics for regarding themselves as “liberals”. One of the biggest philosophical frauds of the last 50 years or so has been how so-called liberals have turned their back on liberal principles in the name of something they regard as better – “progressivism”.

The sweet-sounding progressive cause is a fraud. The con can’t be blamed on zealots taking over the movement. The flaw is deeply embedded in deceitful “progressive” principles. “Diversity and inclusion” are routinely used to exclude diverse voices. “Gender equity” is used consciously to deliver inequitable outcomes for men. “Civility” is deliberately exploited to shut down intellectual debate. “Tolerance” is a very narrow one-way street in the progressive world."

Hasbeen and Shadow Minister,

So the criticisms of Professor Ridd's science by
the Australian Coral Reef Society and other coral
reef scientists are invalid in your eyes?
Okkkay. I guess there's nothing more to say.
They're all red herrings - including the information
and evidence produced to the lack of objectivity
on Ridd's and his cohorts parts?
Fair enough. I'll leave to continue Congratulating
yourselves on your wisdom - and totally ignoring
the facts and evidence being presented.
Why am I not surprised?

diver dan,

Foxes are good at ruffling feathers.

Excellent links, Foxy, both of which clearly demonstrate Ridd to be a fraudulent academic who cherry-picks and massages the evidence to fit his extremist outlier view that global warming and dying reefs have natural rather than man-made causes. They unambiguously reference his funding from fossil-fuel and canegrower money and his links to rightwing and climate change denialist groups like the IPA, the Cato Institute, the AEF and the Gallileo Movement. They highlight the very few outlets to give credence to his views ... the Murdoch media, rightwing shock jocks like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt ... and surprise, surprise ... OLO! Really, there's nothing more to add. This man has been totally discredited and the only people supporting him are those whose views are equally as blinkered and flawed.

Thank You Bronwyn.

It appears that to try to explain away any
irrational suppositions, especially when they
are firmly held by their
proponents with rational explanations is virtually
impossible. Still one feels obliged to try at times.

We're seeing how politically toxic the climate
change debate is becoming in Australia.

Foxy,

Firstly, my point was that the reason given by QU for dismissing Ridd had nothing to do with the legitimacy of his claims, just that he was criticising his peers. It was a pure freedom of speech issue.

Secondly, your link states that certain people disagree with him. As PR clearly stated the errors in the QU research yet your links do not, you have provided no substance.

Bronwyn,

As neither QU nor you, have provided a jot of evidence to dispute Ridd's argument, you sound like the typical left whinge emply vessel.

Let's be clear, Shadow Minister, you were the one who weighed in first and accused me of being a liar. It's up to you to back up your accusatory smear and point out the 'lie' I'm supposed to have told and where I'm wrong. You've made no attempt to do so.

Not only have you falsely accused me of lying, but you've actually lied yourself, or at the very least totally misrepresented what I said. I didn't say Ridd claimed climate change to be a hoax. I said he refuses to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. There's a big difference.

And BTW, the university in question is the James Cook University, not QU, whatever the hell that's meant to be ... UQ?

Your comprehension skills are very low order ... and that's being kind!

Shadow Minister,

I clearly stated earlier that the dismissal of
Peter Ridd by James Cook University was his breaking the
University's code of conduct. It was not a freedom
of speech issue.

As for not producing anything of substance?

Throwing facts at you with the hope of changing your mind
is like playing golf with a pineapple. It's not just
useless, it's actively counterproductive.

Bronwyn,

Another lie. You said that Ridd is " an avowed sceptic of anthropogenic climate change". Now, who is intellectually challenged?

Foxy,

Facts from you are as rare as pineapples on this forum I look forward to you trying.

The point I was also making is that at no time did JCU challenge Ridd's research or criticism. If Ridd had incorrect, it would have been a clear case of defamation and would have been easy to get rid of him.

Shadow Minister

Ridd does not deny that climate change is occurring. Who could, when we're living through it and the evidence is all around us? What he does deny though is that this change is a result of human causes. He believes it's a natural phenomenon, which is completely wrong.

Everything I've written on this thread is entirely consistent. There are no lies. And your comprehension skills truly are deficient. Go and look up the word anthropogenic.

Shadow Minister,

Ridd's science was not on trial - his conduct was.
However his views were challenged many times by
groups of reef scientists at the university arguing that
he his work was full of "misinterpretations, demonstrated
biases, and selective use of data as well as his failure
to acknowledge many of the claims that had already been
addressed in scientific literature."

Ridd was accused of "cherry picking papers from quite
old studies and never citing 50 to 60 published recent
papers."

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, Jr:

You claim to want to give a hearing to other views,
but then are shocked and offended to discover that
there are other views."

Foxy why can't you get into your head, Ridd is a whistle blower, blowing a whistle about academic malpractice that needs blowing longer & louder than any whistle ever blown in Australia.

Yes I know it pains you to have to realise your heroes are no better, & probably much worse than the very worst used car salesmen, running their rip offs against the long suffering tax payer.

Get it, a whistle blower.

Hasbeen,

I know that you really believe that.

So I won't argue any more.

Instead lets wait and see what the Supreme Court
decides and whether Ridd succeeds as a "whistle
blower."

Hasbeen

Ridd is not a whistle blower. What exactly is the illegality or corruption he's supposed to be blowing the whistle on?

Ridd is nothing more than a disgruntled employee who's been sacked by his employer for breaching the university's code of conduct. His behaviour was uncollegial and unprofessional and while JCU might regret the infamy his sacking has brought down on them, he is certainly no whistle blower.

The only whistle Ridd blows is the dog whistle he blows loudly and often to his fellow fossil fuel enthusiasts and anthropogenic global warming denialists.

Bronwyn,

That you clearly have no clue as to the issues Ridd raised with respect to the papers published by other researchers shows that your contribution is purely ideologically based and a complete joke.

Ridd reviewed a couple of papers by colleagues and found glaring errors, either in the "results" that were not supported by the data, or serious errors in the data collection.

Note the JCU has not contested his findings.

Shadow Minister,

Ridd's findings were not on trial and that was not
why he was sacked. And JCU scientists and his peers
did contest his findings. You are repeating things
that simply are false. Just as Ridd has done. And
he's been discredited. Move on.

cont'd ...

You criticized on another discussion the Australian
Coral Reef Society's critiques of Ridd saying that
they were an interest group.

Quoting from the web:

"The Australian Coral Reef Society plays a key role
by promoting scientific research on Australian coral reefs.
Because it is not aligned to ANY vested interests the
society's views are sought by government policy makers,
conservationists and ALL those interested in coral reefs
who need impartial and expert advice."

Unlike Ridd who is funded by fossil fuels and cane grower's
money.

Foxy,

I took the time to read the full transcript of the judgement of the first trial. Specifically mentioned was the fact that during the trial and the two hearings at JCU the validity of Ridd's findings were never disputed.

If you have evidence that Ridd's findings were disputed, please show me where.

SR

Telling porkies again?

"As eminent anthropologist Peter Sutton and archaeologist Keryn Walshe meticulously demonstrate in Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers?, released this week by Melbourne University Press, Dark Emu is “poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many old sources, ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions (and) contains a large number of factual errors”

Essentially Pascoe was making sh1t up.

Shadow Minister,

Ridd's findings were not on trial. His code of
conduct was. And I have already given you two
links that adequately deal with critiques of his
findings by the Australian Coral Reef Society.

Pauliar,

I agree that Ardern is comparable with the Chadian dictator. But with a socialist leader one can't expect any better.

But with idiots like the pedogreens, Aus has roughly 25% of the population who shun the vaccine, especially since the competent Morrison government has largely quelled the pandemic. The only benefit of the moron Daniels is that Victorians are sh1t scared and flocking to get the vaccine.

Foxy and Bronnie are taking the legalistic approach in defending the sacking of Professor Ridd .

I love good movies, girls. And the very best movies are based upon moral issues and moral quandaries, that are central to the story in the movie. Movies like "Dirty Harry" in which the audience is confronted with the question of whether in certain situations, the torture of a suspect by a police officer is entirely justified by common sense.

This is especially true in movies based upon real life events. "In Broad Daylight" is a wonderful movie recounting the problem in Skidmore, Missouri, where a vicious criminal seemed so above the law, that he could terrorise the population of an entire town, while the forces of law and order were so hidebound by legal procedure, that they could do nothing. The movie asks the audience whether in such a situation, vigilante justice is entirely justified.

"Deliberate Intent" is another great movie describing a real life situation where a murderer used a step by step instruction manual called "Hitman" published by Paladin Press, on how to commit a murder and get away with it. James Perry, a hired murderer, used every step in this guide to murder a mother, her disabled child, and a nurse, so that her husband would inherit the childs' compensation payout. The movie investigates whether the US First Amendment protects publishers printing instruction manuals on committing very serious crime.

But the best one to illustrate the Professor Ridd controversy, is Russel Crowe in the movie "The Insider." This movie is based upon the fact that a tobacco company who claimed in court that their product was not dangerous, used a confidentiality agreement on one of their former employees, to shut him up from testifying against them in court. The employee was a scientist who the tobacco company had hired to make their dangerous product safer by removing carcinogens and other poisons from their product. Given Foxy and Bronnie's attitude, one must assume that they support the tobacco companies in their quest to shut up anybody who knows they are lying.