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.