Dear Steele,

Perhaps this link may help:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/18/judge-peter-ridd-james-cook-trial-not-climate-science-freedom-speech

Reflux says:” Now you are saying than unless I can prove the clause included in the EBA was explicitly placed there by the the union then my argument collapses.

This is of course bonkers. “
I did not say that, Reflux, you said it, and as you say, it is” bonkers”, like the rest of your assertions on this topic.
We are past the point where demonstrations of the addled state of your mind are funny. You are just tiresome.
You have at least established that you are unable to sustain any of your baseless assertions about Ridd’s agreement.

The Ridd case should not be hijacked by climate change advocates or by sensitive academics.

Surely media-reported questions should also include, is the Peter Ridd view of coral damage validated by his unfair dismissal win?

If Peter Ridd had said nothing he would not have been dismissed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

SR,

I'm glad that you read the judgement. I also thought that his decisions were clear well explained and logical and dealt with each point individually and thoroughly. I brought it up in a separate thread with respect to the proposed cancellation of Folau's contract.

I would be genuinely interested in your take on the correlation between the two cases.

While I don't have access to the details of Folau's contract, the fact that Rugby Australia tried to insert a social media clause into Folau's contract (unsuccessfully) subsequent to both parties signing the contract indicates to me that the contract is silent on social media issues, which would make cancelling the contract risky.

As background to Reflux’s refusal to behave like a reasonable human being I will post a copy of my post of 11 August 2017 one of the futile requests I made of him to disclose the source of the scurrilous lies he posted about Professor Robert Carter. Carter showed that the scientific proof of human causation of global warming
Put out by the IPCC was invalid. Reflux, finding no science to counter a climate scientist like Carter’s flawless science, posted a lie, attacking Carter
The copy of my previous post:
“Reflux, demonstrating his lack of breeding, and his ignorant, uncivil behaviour, still fails to respond to questions about his lie concerning Professor Carter.
Here is a copy of my post in May, requesting his response
” Steele Reflux has raised his delusional head again, using the scurrilous term “denier”.
As I have asked you many times before, Reflux, what is the science being denied?
You have none. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You disappeared from the climate thread after you posted the baseless lie that Robert Carter’s complete demolition of the climate fraud had been shown to be untrue.
You gave no reference to the source of this nonsense, and I asked you to give the source or admit that you had concocted the ridiculous lie yourself.
As is your custom when you corner yourself with your dishonesty, you disappeared down your rodent hole for months.
Now that you have surfaced will you please give the source of your baseless lies about Robert Carter’s work.
He showed that the assertions about CO2 by the fraud promoters completely fail.
As Carter's science is flawless, fraud promoters like Reflux, make baseless personal attacks.
What is your response this time, Reflux?
Disappear down the rat hole again?
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday,

That Peter Ridd said something and what he said and whether it was absurd or correct, should also be debated and reported as to whether he is guilty or not.

JCU is a good university with mostly genuine scientists not totally obsessed and tied up with AGW and CO2 emission views.
I think JCU is a pawn. Evidence indicates the debacle is GBRMPA policy with its boundary jurisdiction that excludes scientific study and measurement and assessment of impact of the Australian east coast sediment dispersal system current flowing northwards and transporting nutrient pollution into GBR waters.

And another debacle is commentators inability to comprehend nutrient pollution is causing areas of coral damage, not GBR overall damage caused by global warming.

http://www.thegwpf.com/the-ridd-affair-is-a-debacle-for-james-cook-university/