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.