Perhaps universities should be like higher courts which allow dissenting opinions by judges, but that opinion must be fully documented. There is an irony in that JCU won't tolerate a dissenting view within its own ranks yet both the Qld and Federal governments encourage new coal mines in the state. In other words authorities higher than JCU take what amounts to a dissenting view.

While I support a coal phaseout and measures to protect the GBR I don't think mainstream climate scientists are infallible. For example I think those who think we can replace fossil fuels with wind and solar are deluded and undermine their credibility on climate science. A compromise might be to drop litigation and pay Ridd an income so he can write for alternative journals.

"In the first place, it is fearsomely expensive". What better way to keep the average plebs down. Law is for the rich and influential, and highly organised groups.

It is a great pity that we don't have an educated - and interested - electorate so that the 'by the people' part of governing could be in play. But that is just wishful thinking in rooted Australia.

Expecting the government to straighten out the matter. Loud scoffing. What's the difference between Scott Morrison and Harold Holt? Holt went missing only once.

Since when have universities not been partisan in their individual structure?
To deny that obvious fact makes this question a nonsense.
Ridd and his problems are not worth one dollar. He is actually a part of the common enemy.

Dan

Graham, Peter is only the tip of the iceberg , how many other scientists are concerned but do not raise their heads for fear of losing their positions or prospects for advancement. Bill Burrows left over his concerns about the deleterious fallout from the Veg Acts . All this sends a very clear message - do not rock the politically correct boat and follow the politics not the science
The replication crisis is real and creates very rubbery vs robust science
Thank you providing a forum for the politically incorrect opinions

I would think that someone who is not prepared to sit quietly when they know an authority is prepared to tell straight out lies, as most obviously are, would be worth more than the whole lying organisation.

If we could get a few meteorologists doing the same the world would be a much better place.

Sorry, Graham, but I disagree! The entirely impartial court is the most appropriate place for this highly contentious issue to be resolved!

And on the evidence, as presented! Rather than the controversial opinions of Mr Ridd!

In as much as the most important view in the room is the dissenting one! It also follows that it's logical and relies on factual evidence! Rather than highly controversial opinion!?

Mr Ridd and his extreme right-wing cohort may wish otherwise? But those of us for whom the truth is the most important goal! A good outcome!

I have no sympathy for folk who peddle patent propaganda in its place!? The issues to be ventilated are too important and as important as life or death!

Let Mr Ridd stand or fall on provable facts! And if that isn't an entirely fair outcome? What would w have to replace it?

Space-age and unbeatable lie detection that is available to the general public!? While we do have that technology! Nobody in the pork pie industry wants to see it deployed, least of all Mr Ridd and his right-wing cohort!?
Alan B.

Here we have a case of a marine geophysicist
Prof. Peter Ridd who's had a long association with
groups pushing denial of the well established links
between human activity and dangerous climate change
who is suing his own university (JCU) and thinks
the multiple threats to Australia's Great Barrier Reef
are overblown.

Climate Science deniers and conservative media have
found themselves a new "free speech" hero.

Outlets include Breitbart, Fox News, and columns and
interviews across Australia's conservative landscape
(Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, et al) all presenting Ridd
as a bastion of truth pushing back against the
establishment.

But how does that image hold up to scrutiny - we may
well ask?

The following link explains further:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/peter-ridd-the-new-hero-of-climate-science-denial.11352

I agree with AlanB. This matter should be dealt with in
the courts. It's become too politicized, divisive,
and contentious. Objectivity has gone out the window.
Let the courts decide.

con'd ...

Sorry here's the link again:

http://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/peter-ridd-the-new-hero-of-climate-science-denial.11352

Third time lucky:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/peter-ridd-the-new-hero-of-climate-science-denial,11352

Like the Dark Emu scam, we needy some lefties to tell the truth before the ideologs from their camp take notice. A non- lefty has no hope of getting a fair hearing in the MSM, the ABC and, of course, universities.

Foxy. Right on the money and objective!

The issue is climate change, its impact and what we need to do about it!

Many on Ridd side of the insane political divide, will own their own facts and strenuously argue that climate change is not real and that there is SFA we can do about it!

Whereas, there's so much we could do if we were intelligently led! And if the right policies were deployed?

We could deal with climate change, with safe, cheap, clean carbon-free solutions, that also quite massively turbocharge the economy and all but eliminate poverty and unmet need from the face of the earth!

And as we do just that? Also open up a pathway for humankind, to the stars? That begins with VLT aircraft that fly on inexhaustible electric power!

And done by cracking the water molecule, then using the resultant hydrogen as the fuel source, then using the resulting condensed water vapour over and over to power the whole self-sustaining process!

And using the fact that magnetism is a far stronger power than gravity!

And if you understand how! May be deployed to not just beat gravity! But power future spacecraft at just under the speed of light to the stars!?

Mr Ridd and his idiotic ideological cohort are all that stand shoulder to shoulder, four square, in the way! TBC
Alan B.

HMMM, notice how the argument has shifted from Ridd the dissenter on
the condition of the reef to Ridd the AGW denier.

That is an old trick that has been used very successfully many times.
It is however in need of a retread.
Anyway I think the whole AGW trick might well be on its way out.

The judges are considering whether Ridd offended his colleagues.
Not who is right in the scientific argument.

Well done Graham for writing and posting this piece. There are some details of your article over which we will agree to disagree, but you've a long history of championing free speech, and you deserve full credit for this. High Court the appropriate place for this to be decided? Dunno. I think legal scholar George Williams has said that, either way, this will be quite a landmark High Court case. Let's hope that the High Court takes a firm stance in support of free speech.

If Ridd is wrong about the GBR, the way to handle it is to demonstrate his error. But that's not the way of the world these days - at least not the woke world.

These days they just go straight to censorship. You say something I don't like, or don't want to be true, and I'll attempt to have you silenced. Its not the way science or even civil dialogue works and its not the way forward. This new form of fighting unwanted ideas and information is part of the reason why the west is in so much trouble at the moment. People just take a side and then try to silence or cancel the others.

An additional problem is that science is now a career rather than a calling. For many (too many) its no longer about the search for truth but instead the search for advancement. So if you hang your career on the notion that the GBR is dying, you need to defend that position in the face of all other notions. Your career, your fame your financial position and you advancement are dependent on you being right. To be wrong is to be over. So you aren't open to other views - you can't be.

Whether Ridd is right or wrong about the GBR is beside the point. His right to intelligently argue his side is the issue and when we have a society where that can no longer happen (and we are almost there) then we have a society in a death spin.

The entirely impartial court is the most appropriate place
Alan B,
Ideally yes but, is there such a court ?

Yup, there is such a court and Mr Ridd will have his day in it! Where he and his legal team will be able to present all their evidence! And then let the chips fall where they may!
Alan B.

Yup, there is such a courtAlan B.
Glad to hear that but why isn't this court used everyday for everyday issues ? It'd make for a far better society than by using the courts we use now.
Ignorant & arrogant Judges making decisions on issues they have no clue on & sending decent people towards more problems whilst pussy-footing conmen & criminals in general.
How come politicians can do what they do whilst there is a court that could prevent them from making such a mess ? Why does this court allow so many crook journalists stirring up so much hatred ?
If there is such a court then let's use !!

Foxy,

The independent Australian is a blog that almost exclusively polemics that are riddled with factual inaccuracies or outright lies.

Shadow Minister,

You'll have to be more specific as to where the link lied.
His case is not about Ridd's "freedom" to say what he wants
but it's about the breach of the university's code of conduct
whether you like the code or not.

In any case we shall have to wait and see what the Supreme
Court decides.

Foxy, the court can only decide if Prof Ridd was rude to his colleagues
or what he said was within the Uni's rules for politeness.
The court cannot decide whether the GBR is doomed or not, it is not
within its jurisdiction.

In the long run, the court aside, it will be evidence on site that matters.

Foxy wrote: "His case is not about Ridd's "freedom" to say what he wants
but it's about the breach of the university's code of conduct
whether you like the code or not."

Not quite. Its about whether the Code of Conduct can be used to suppress dissent from the politically acceptable science.

Bazz wrote: "it will be evidence on site that matters"

I'm not at all sure the evidence will be allowed to matter. The evidence will be required to fit the narrative.
I honeymooned on the GBR (South Molle Island) back in the 1970s and at the time I was told that the reef was in real danger and would be gone within two decades. Of course in those days the culprit was the great cooling scare. Mrs mhaze and I made a brief visit to the same island in 2019 out of nostalgia. Guess what. We were told the reef was in real danger and would be gone in two decades

Yesterday I heard that the temperature in Alberta Canada had climbed to 49C! Breaking the previous record by 10C?

This occurring during a La Nina Phase and a waning solar (cooling) phase! And like the annual summer melt of the "permanently" frozen tundra, unprecedented!

I don't believe the climate change denial cohort disbelieve the evidence or the record that shows an upward spike in the trend! I believe the real, if unspoken, concern for these BS artists, is their investment in coal or their revenue stream from coal, or gas and oil.

Many posting here, may not even be residing here but abroad? St Petersburg e.g.?

And doing all they can to support the like of Mr Ridd and his cabal with downright BS, writ large!?

Those with their heads up their fundamental orifice? (Somewhere warm and comfortable) May have an excuse for not seeing reality? Or what we could do about it!?

And are terrified that the powers that be, may embrace something like MSR thorium and couple it to electric vehicles and graphene underlayed highways? A combination that permanently ends any reliance on fossil fuels, makes the production of hydrogen from waste heat almost a certainty!

And those that have the wit to grasp this massive economic opportunity? May well become an energy-exporting economic superpower!

Let Mr Ridd have his day in court, present his evidence, if he has any other than his controversial opinion!

And because I believe that's all he has? Another nail in the coffin of the (cage-rattling) climate change denialists, many commenting here!
Alan B

Bazz,

The Peter Ridd case is about Ridd breaching JCU's
code of conduct. His case in the High Court is based
on the terms of his contract.

AlanB.,

Thank You for your kind words to me.

The Peter Ridd case is highly contentious and divisive.
It will be interesting to see what the High Court decides.

Yes it will be interesting.

The Supreme Court is as much on trial here as is Peter Ridd, or James Cook Uni. It is really a trial of the elites verses the little bloke. It is probable the high court will see themselves challenged as much as the rest of the elites, & the university sector.

It will be interesting to see if justice will be served. We have already seen that the left, who normally love a whistle blower, are totally on the side of the elites in this one.

Hasbeen,

Peter Ridd has the support of Gina Rhineheart and the
fossil fuel industry. He has the support of wealthy
right-wing shock jocks like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones,
the Institute of Public Affairs, and many other wealthy
donors. Do you really believe that it's a case of some
little bloke fighting the good fight? Ridd is also suing
for millions in compensation. I don't think you actually
believe what you just said.

Foxy's list of conservative commentators PROVES that the Reef is doomed.
Why not add everyone who appears on Sky News ?

Bazz,

If you know Prof. Ridd's other supporters you're
welcomed to list them yourself. I'm not sure
that everyone on Sky News supports him. But perhaps
they don't want to breach their employment agreements?

Dear GrahamY,

And not one mention of the union which insisted it was in the EBA? There are other institutions where Ridd would not have the opportunity to contest this in court because there is no such inclusion.

Trying to make out freedom of speech is something primarily from the right, and happy to shut-down ABC reporters from commenting via their personal twitter feeds, is a little disingenuous I would have thought.

Dear Hasbeen,

As an academic had Ridd been more supportive of AGW he would have been one of the elites you bang on about constantly. So it seems anyone who doesn't take your idiotic world view seriously is elitist.

How base level is that?

The difference SR is that he is not a lying academic, but whistle blowing against the grant hungry liars.

SR.

Congratulations.

“As an academic had Ridd been more supportive of AGW he would have been one of the elites you bang on about constantly. So it seems anyone who doesn't take your idiotic world view seriously is elitist”

My own view entirely. There are some short sighted thinkers on this site. You’ve exposed an example!

Dan

'Oh, this man says things about global warming that I don't want to be true and most certainly don't want to hear.
THEREFORE he must be utterly silenced about all other issues. I don't want to hear what he says about other issues because I disagree with him about this AGW.'

Its a strange way of 'following the science' which these people preen themselves about. Yet they've convinced themselves that they are on the side of the angels.

Suppressing opinion is never right...always wrong. Using the law in ways never intended, to suppress unwelcome views is only marginally better than just burning the books. There have been any number of instances throughout history of views and groups being suppressed 'lawfully'. The 20th century was rife with them. Just because it was lawful doesn't make it right. The Athenians were very careful to give Socrates a fair trial before executing him.

But these 'followers of science' are salving their conscience by asserting that its lawful to suppress views. They're wrong.

SR,

For once we agree. The right to freedom of speech seems today to be championed by conservatives. A couple of decades ago it was the progressive movement that fought for freedom of speech and the press, but now the "progressives" are the achitects of new waves of censorship and oppression. It would appear that the new freedom of speech and thought extends only to the present and rapidly changing left whinge dogma. The left are the new fascists.

As for the ABC, the largess of taxpayer money comes at the cost of a neutrality of political opinion. I have no problem with all ABC reporter speaking their minds on the condition that taxpayer funding stops.

shadowminister,

Naturally it follows that Ridd gets to speak his mind only if he receives none of the public funds which go to universities like James Cook. Therefore you seem to be agreeing he should have kept his trap shut.

If you are not then you are employing the same nauseating hypocrisy that Hasbeen has foisted upon us, something which I'd feel highly likely given your form.

Many vehement appeasers are actually the most guilty of the crime.

Dan

"Had Ridd been more supportive of AGW he would have been one of the elites you bang on about constantly. So it seems anyone who doesn't take your idiotic world view seriously is elitist” Diver Dan.

Well you got that wrong Diver. If Ridd had been an elitist he would have supported the club position, & lied to the public to keep the money flowing. It is precisely because he will not lie on que that he has been excommunicated from the club.

Jennifer Marohasy exposed them taking coral counting transits across the tidal drying coral flat, & declaring no live coral around Bowen. Every kid who lives in the coastal tropics knows drying flats are dead, but I suppose it is too much to ask that a marine biology professor have the same knowledge. That or more likely, they used the knowledge to promoter the lie.

"Naturally it follows that Ridd gets to speak his mind only if he receives none of the public funds which go to universities like James Cook. Therefore you seem to be agreeing he should have kept his trap shut". from the disgusting SR.

Obviously he endorses the academic world promoting any line if it comes with enough money attached, & suppressing the truth if it doesn't. Truly nauseating hypocrisy!@

Dear Hasbeen,

You are a joker aren't you. You get called out on your hypocrisy and react by calling me disgusting.

Really a bit harsh old boy. Much better to just acknowledge the obvious transgression and move on.

But you have decided to keep going. Oh well a bit of sport at least.

Ridd was originally awarded 1.2 million as compensation potential lost wages. Those wages are supported for the most part by tax payer money. His “elitist gravy train” has well and truly got a good head of stream up. You do know he chose the money over reinstatement which the University was willing to do?

Next you prattle out: “Jennifer Marohasy exposed them taking coral counting transits across the tidal drying coral flat”

Marohasy is a hack in my opinion. Her posts are a turgid mess. The turbidity is somehow “natural”, the coral is “alive and well”, but the dieback is the result of a lunar “declination cycle of 18.6 years”. She just blasts away and hopes something sticks. Typical rightwing nonsense which just lays the groundwork for the usual deflections employed by you all.

But that is by the by.

This comes down to freedom of speech and it was only the insistence of the union that it was included in the EBA otherwise Ridd wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Do you support the efforts of the Union to ensure free speech and why can't the same be afforded to ABC staff using their personal social media accounts?

Dear mhze,

Same question to you. You claim “Suppressing opinion is never right...always wrong.”. Will you defend ABC workers in being allowed to express their opinions via their own accounts?

Dear Diver Dan,

Thank you. That awareness does seem to be lacking in many on here.

SR,

I not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or are just really stupid.

Public servants such as the ABC journalists are required to remain completely politically impartial as they are direct government employees and if openly political could be discharged with every change of government.

Whereas "The directive on IPPIS was meant for civil servants and university academics are not civil servants.” and universities are expected to be able to discuss and debate all issues free of censorship which as you pointed out is in JCU's employment charter.

Secondly, Ridd was fired not for political statements, but for pointing out technical errors in the data and findings of other researchers. That the university never challenged the validity of his criticisms makes this entirely a free speech issue.

SR,

"Same question to you. You claim “Suppressing opinion is never right...always wrong.”. Will you defend ABC workers in being allowed to express their opinions via their own accounts?"

Yes. I support them being able to say what they like on twitter etc.

And since you are so gung-ho on that, can we get a statement from you that Ridd should be allowed to say what he likes on his area of expertise, or any other thing for that matter. Stand-by for the linguistic gymnastics :)

Actually I'm very much in favour of ABC journos saying what they like on their chosen social media. It helps to show just how spectacularly biased the whole organisation is and how the entire ABC class is to the left of Mao.

Well SR is all gung-ho to get others to show consistency in regards to freedom of speech. But as soon as he's asked to do likewise...whoops, he's gone. Urgent appointment elsewhere dontcha know.

Its always the same with these people - rights for me but not for thee.
.

Gee I can't imagine why the JCU marine research departments would want to suppress critical opinions....

"Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt

Dear mhaze,

This little nip at the heels from you: "can we get a statement from you that Ridd should be allowed to say what he likes on his area of expertise, or any other thing for that matter."

Really?

This is what I wrote when the initial judgement was handed down:

"What a great win for the union movement. The protections of academic freedom they managed to have inserted into the enterprise bargaining agreement have over ridden the tepid and stifling JCU code of conduct."

Is this really what you have been reduced to? Manufacturing straw men at a rate that would challenge even shadowminister?

Where have the decent rightwing voices gone from this forum, you know, the ones who could sustain an argument without resorting to petty little debating tactics?

Those like yourself who are so determined to emulate Trump's style are all we have left.

Sad, very sad.

So that's a no to coming out in favour of Ridd being allowed to speak his mind and criticise his colleagues.
That's a no to opposing the use of the law to shut down academic debate.
That's a no to simply saying Ridd is in the right.

That's a no to showing any sort of consistency of thought. ABC journos must be allowed to say what you want to hear, anyone who doesn't must be silenced.

Come on, man! Just a simple statement that you'd like Ridd to have the same rights that you demand for ABC jounos.

Dear mhaze,

Mate, that reads like something from a shellshocked victim.

It's alright son, things are going to be fine. This isn't sheep stations.

Happy to oblige in the most direct language possible since it seems to be the only thing that will calm you down.

You demanded: "Just a simple statement that you'd like Ridd to have the same rights that you demand for ABC jounos."

Yes I would like Ridd to have the same rights that I demanded (demand is a bit strong for what I said but doesn't matter) for ABC journos.

To be quite specific since that is what you have 'demanded', I want Ridd to be able express his opinion freely on his personal social media accounts.

Of course that isn't just what he did was it, he did the march through numerous rightwing media spots saying his some of his other academic colleagues couldn't be trusted.

So the question for you is should the ABC journos be given the kind of freedom you have clearly advocated for Ridd? Or are you going to be once again deeply hypocritical on this issue?

SR, unhappy that I didn't play the game he wanted, asks yet again...
"So the question for you is should the ABC journos be given the kind of freedom you have clearly advocated for Ridd? Or are you going to be once again deeply hypocritical on this issue?"

I wrote this yesterday so obviously you've forgotten....

"Yes. I support them being able to say what they like on twitter etc.

Actually I'm very much in favour of ABC journos saying what they like on their chosen social media. It helps to show just how spectacularly biased the whole organisation is and how the entire ABC class is to the left of Mao."

"saying his some of his other academic colleagues couldn't be trusted."

So did you decide to ignore the link I posted this morning? Good idea if you want to continue believing the narrative.

SR,

This is why Ridd chose the money over reinstatement:

"The Federal Circuit Court, which in April found the dismissal was unlawful, on Friday said Dr Ridd would now be seen as "damaged goods" and the university had "poisoned the well".

Outlining his final declarations and penalties, Judge Salvatore Vasta suggested the university's conduct bordered on "paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness" and Dr Ridd must have felt he was being persecuted. He found the academic's intellectual freedom had been undermined by the "myopic and unjustified actions of his lifelong employer".

"In this case, Professor Ridd has endured over three years of unfair treatment by JCU – an academic institution that failed to respect the rights to intellectual freedom that Professor Ridd had as per [his enterprise agreement]," the judge decided."

Dear mhaze,

Mate, I responded fully to your question when you pulled me up. I'm doing the same to you now.

This is what I asked:

“So the question for you is should the ABC journos be given the kind of freedom you have clearly advocated for Ridd? Or are you going to be once again deeply hypocritical on this issue?”

The freedoms you are advocating for Ridd go well past an ABC journo commenting via personal media don't they.

I put the question again to you. Should they be the same?

Ridd was most certainly commenting in his official capacity which is why the Code of conduct pulled him up.

Should ABC journos be permitted to do that without censure?

Shadowminister,

Judge Salvatore Vasta's judgement was overturned by a higher court like Pell's conviction. Why have you gone back to it?

SR,

Can't take 'yes' for an answer.

Yes, my preference is that ABC journos should have unfettered rights to say what they like within and without their job. Just as Ridd needs to have unfettered freedom of speech within academia.

I can't help but notice that you have assiduously avoided the link I posted showing why its important that Ridd et al be able to criticise the cabal running GBR research within JCU.

As to ABC journos, the more they talk the more we see their true selves. So let 'em yak it up, I say.

SR,

You were the one claiming that Ridd was more interested in the money than being employed at JCU, that Vasta's judgement was overturned does not invalidate his observation that the relationship between JCU and Ridd had deteriorated severely making future employment untenable.

Also, all public servants are expected to perform their duties under the government of the day irrespective of its political stripe which is difficult if they display an overt bias against the government which is why in most democracies public servants especially in the media are required to steer away from overtly political statements. The ABC staff seem to be given a lot of latitude and are pulled up only when they get abusive.

University academics are not actually public servants and are not bound by the same strictures as public servants and in fact, universities are supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas. Universities like JCU while professing to encourage free expression clearly have moved to suppress this by putting up vague and subjective codes of conduct that can be used to censure inconvenient, unorthodox or politically incorrect people or ideas.

Shadowminister,

What an absolute pile of horse dung.

Of the 41 universities in Australia only 5 are privatised. While strictly deemed independent of Government their employees are regarded as public sectors workers.

The ABC is also regarded as independent of government, in fact it is legislated to be so.

This means their workers are also deemed to be of the public sector but not public servants.

“Today the Federal Government has announced a six-month deferral of wage increases for all Australian Public Service employees to take effect from 14 April for twelve months.
This decision does not apply to the ABC. The ABC’s independence is enshrined in legislation and the ABC’s leadership are under no obligation to apply this to ABC staff.”
http://www.cpsu.org.au/news/abc-and-public-sector-wage-freeze

SR,

What Bullsh1t. The very charter that grants the ABC independence also unequivocally requires the ABC to be politically neutral, whereas the universities have no such requirement, and in fact are expected to encourage freedom of speech.

As it is clear that you are opposed to free speech your pressing for the ABC to have free speech can only be because they echo your dogma.