Today, it was announced in the Federal Circuit Court that Dr Ridd will receive $1,219,214.47 in damages following the Court’s decision in April that Dr Ridd was unlawfully sacked.

Damages awarded $1.2 million is comprised of approximately $167,000 for past wages and superannuation lost, $835,000 for future wages and superannuation lost, $90,000 for general damages and $125,000 as pecuniary penalty.

“The sum awarded reflects the appalling nature of JCU’s treatment of Dr Ridd and vindicates Peter Ridd’s fight for academic freedom, free speech and integrity of climate science and peer review,” said Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at the IPA.

This is a warning to left whingers that censorship has its price.

That might teach the bastards not to persecute people who tell the truth. Other brain-washing factories take note.

geez, even the decent ones get paid way too much !

A win-win certainly for Dr Ridd and his right-wing
supporters. He's now taking his claims on tour -
that farmland pollution does not significantly damage
the natural wonder that is the Great Barrier Reef.

He can take his roadshow on the road. He's fully supported
by sugarcane industry managers and other industries that
have campaigned against the proposed state regulations
limiting sediment and chemical run off on the reef
coast.

The industry response has been very strong
against the new
regulations aimed at improving water quality in the
reef area.

They now have a spokesman on their side.

Just as the Tobacco industry must have had to convince
people that smoking was good for your health.

There's more at the following link:

http://theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

Unfortunately James Cook can be like the other unis and hand out degrees to full paying Chinese students in order to cover this payout. They will continue to preach lies about the reef, collect Chinese money and meanwhile the Chinese will continue build thousands of coal powered stations while preaching to us. The integrity of much of academia is very questionable.

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.

While there was no judgement about the correctness or otherwise of Ridd's views this will send a message to all those who have turned so emphatically against academia like many on this forum.

A good day indeed.

No SR, totally wrong.

This judgement might just force universities to correct the behaviour that has turned so many of us against them.

Revert to decent academic & moral behaviour, & the universities will regain the full support of most.

FOXY,

once more I see that you simply re-hash what is common knowledge.
This is one of the very traits I have highlighted about you and your method of "debating".
I draw your attention to the purpose of this medium once more, and that it is an OPINION forum.
Your last posting along with most of your others, conveys NO opinion, but merely a form of plagiarism.
Now I know you have opinions about EVERYTHING, even if they are mostly wrong.
So don't bother telling us what we already know as if we are all backward, I might be, but I am quite convinced, by the calibre and standards or command of the English language demonstrated here in this forum, others are not, and therefore do not need you leading them by the nose about issues and topics they are far better informed or qualified to comment on, than both our collective knowledge.

ALTRAV,
It'd be morally wrong to dispute your assessment !

ALTRAV,

Well said. I didn't read what she said - I'm abiding by her 'if you don't like it don't read it advice - but I know it would have been the same combative, aggressive stuff that is her trademark. She and three others mar the OLO experience if you don't ignore them. Posters should be able to lay out their opinions, no matter what they are, without being lectured and lambasted. This not Facebook or Twitter. None of us is perfect, but the same four always act like school-yard bullies. The more responses they get, the more strident they become. You know they are out of nasty ideas when the start 'dearing' each other, as if they circling the wagons against us ignorant 'right wing devils'

Dear ALTRAV The Magnificent,

Apart from being a god, what else are you?

"Outlining his final declarations and penalties, Judge Salvatore Vasta also 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 Dr Ridd’s intellectual freedom had been undermined by the “myopic and unjustified actions of his lifelong employer". (Catallaxy Files)

Dear ALTRAV The Magnificent,

Apart from being a god, what else are you?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 7 September 2019 9:07:19 AM

This young fella wasn't included in the four, but he is well up there as a hater of people whose opinions he doesn't like.

Dear Hasbeen,

You said;

“No SR, totally wrong.”

No old cock I'm afraid I am totally right.

This is what the judge said was the reason for his decision. To;

"deter both this university and any other employer from dismissing an employee for exercising basic workplace rights".

You can get a more emphatic statement than that.

Let me repeat this was a great day for showing how unions can protect the rights of workers through EBAs.

It doesn't matter how much you want to spin it this was what it was about.

Hasbeen,

It's to be hoped that James Cook and other universities will learn from this drubbing, but history shows them to be recalcitrant. But, the decision certainly puts then elites on notice. They need to remember where the money comes from.

This is certainly all about the money.

Look at who supports this win-win situation
of Ridd's.

Right-wing commentators, Institute of
Public Affairs, sugarcane industry managers and other
industries - all campaigning against the proposed state
regulations limiting sediment and chemical run off
on the reef coast.

We might well ask why the industry's
response is against new regulations at improving water
quality in the reef area. And why do they so strongly support
Dr Ridd's claims when a panel of scientists says that
Dr Ridd is misrepresenting science.

why do they so strongly support
Dr Ridd's claims when a panel of scientists says that
Dr Ridd is misrepresenting science.
Foxy,
It's simply one against the other. They all want their respective industry keep on going !
Was Ridd really misrepresenting science, or where the scientists misrepresenting reality ?
Dont't forget that 90% of scientists are professional guessers hanging off the Taxpayers' apron & the rest are the handful who actually produce solutions.
You know the ones who, along with the taxpayers are the ones whom society depends upon !

Now the night of the long knives has begun, let's continue with a book burning ceremony by starting with Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" and return this country the semblance of its past morality.

Dan

Foxy et al,

What the left whinge deliberately overlooks is that at no time during Ridd's disciplinary hearings or in the resultant court case was the veracity of Ridd's claims against his colleagues of scientific dishonesty challenged.

Considering that Ridd is producing reams of evidence to support his case, the question isn't who is supporting him, it should be why are all the left whinge media opposing everything he publishes that is supported by scientific fact?

That the excessive legislation that is threatening the viability of the sugar industry is based on dodgy "scientific" reports should be a wake up call to revise the more onerous components of that legislation so that the waterway pollution can be reduced without unwarranted economic damage.

Dear Shadow minister,

Get your hand of it mate. This is directly from the judgement and the judge;

"this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement"

The veracity of Ridd's claims were not challenged because that was not the subject of the case, the EBA and the protections inserted by the union were. They were found to be robust enough to over ride the university's code of conduct and thus held the day.

Trying to turn this into an argument about global warming is dishonest and unbecoming. You need to stop.

SR,

Firstly, I never tried to make this about global warming. It was about a highly regarded scientist calling out the dodgy methodology used by colleagues to put out reports and being sacked for this not because Ridd's claims were incorrect, but because it demolished the politically popular claims in the dodgy reports.

That the court case was not about the veracity of Ridd's claims was precisely because the university never challenged the veracity of Ridd's claims.

Dear Shadow Minister,

“That the court case was not about the veracity of Ridd's claims was precisely because the university never challenged the veracity of Ridd's claims.”

Bloody hell. They didn't challenge them because that was not their concern in this matter which is what they made very clear;

“The assertion in your Further Response that the University is attempting to "silence criticism" is grossly inconsistent with the Further Allegations Letter, which makes it clear that the University is not concerned that you have expressed a scientific view that is different to the view of the University or its stakeholders, rather, the University is concerned that you have expressed your views in a manner that is inconsistent with the professional standards expected by the University and reflected in the Code of Conduct.”

Stop trying to make this something it isn't.

Stop trying to make this something it isn't.
Steele Redux,
It's all about the academic Elite & their pseudo-academic desciples to maintain the momentum of their taxpayer funded funding bandwagon !
If they were indeed as concerned about the Environment as they make us believe then they would have led by example by now. Alas !

SR,
and you actually believe them and accept that explanation, without question?

Foxy, I was very disappointment to see you liken Ridd to the tobacco
companies. That was totally dishonest.
I am afraid it has revealed your unflinching bias.

Dear Bazz,

I'm sorry that I have disappointed you.
However, I guess we're all biased to certain
degrees. And our opinions will vary depending
on which side of each issue we're at.
I have to admit that I am influenced by the
panel of scientists who have assessed Dr Ridd's
claims. The Great Barrier Reef is one of our
icons - hence my concerns.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Once more, I find it necessary to rebuke you for your unseemly language on 'The Forum.' A clear violation of our moral standards. Your response to Shadow Minister was not in keeping with those standards, especially whenever we're in (public) discussion with others.

Therefore I'm sure in hindsight you'd agree, that; 'Get your hand off it mate,' might suit the rough and tumble environments in Victoria, but here in NSW we like to maintain a more measured, more diplomatic approach, if and when we feel the need to correct another's opinions or views. Perhaps an apology is due to our colleague, SHADOW MINISTER, notwithstanding he is, your intellectual superior.

I might add, now that I'm well and truly ensconced in my dotage, a new role of as a self-appointed guardian of virtue, righteousness, and propriety, might be my next and final pursuit in life? Whatayoureckon Steele ol' mate?

Dear o sung wu,

What do I reckon? I reckon it's a great idea.

I feel you will be admirably suited to the task ahead having kept the law in order and ensured proper conduct of the general masses and the masses in general.

Of course along with such a great responsibility comes an obligation to be impartial and even handed in the dispensing of forum justice. If you feel you are up to the job at hand so to speak then welcome, I confirm you to be the arbiter of all that is good and seemly on the forum.

You have requested an apology to Shadow Minister and I of course will go one better henceforth apologising to the forum members as a whole for thrusting into their consciousness the image of Shadow Minister with his hand on it. It was entirely unfair and improper to have impinged on their mental well being in such a fashion. I really should have just stuck with w@nker.

There is obviously a need for a title to match your promotion. Chief guardian perhaps? Or guardian in residence? I shall give it some thought but in the meantime welcome to the role.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I could always count on you to respond in kind, my friend, despite the many disagreements we've had over time. Truth is my dementia is taking hold, and I only remain on the Forum in an attempt to prolong what intellect that might remain, within the mush that's now between my ears.

Many of my former colleagues are either dead or similarly afflicted with this dreadful life-sapping disease. And in its advanced form (Stage 4), they say you ultimately forget even to breathe. Perhaps it's an occupational scourge that affects many retired coppers, who'd know? Keep up the excellent work, Steele, I always enjoy your responses, even though I might manifestly disagree. As to an appropriate title - How about 'Idiot in Residence'? Cheers ol' mate.

Dear o sung wu,

When my time comes old chap I hope I can approach it in a manner similar to yours. And if time on the forum keeps the curse at bay even a little then you should avail yourself of the service, without fear of diminishing in anyone's regard.

I will of course take advantage of your more lucid moments to remind you how much more erudite I am than yourself, and you will have an excuse to conveniently forget the exchange.

Naturally in the case of you having a 'moment' I will make sure you are reminded of the thousand dollars you owe me.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

However, could I forget my debt to you - Actually, I thought it was more like ten thousand Dollars, or wait a minute, perhaps it was Lire, yup - Lire 10,000, I'm sure of it. Accordingly, I hope to receive your cheque in the mail.

Of course, I'd expect you to launch into full flight, whenever I deserve a 'serve.' Otherwise, it would defeat the need for me to remain on the Forum at all. G'night Steele.

Hey o sung wu, we may be getting to the stage that it is mush between our ears, but we can be thankful we aren't like some on the site, who have nothing but bile in the same place.

Hasbeen,
Not even a Proctologist can help them !

What SR and others don't grasp is that Peter Ridd was essentially a whistle blower.

That during the disciplinary enquiries and court case the university never disputed the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims means that they accepted that PR's criticisms were correct and were only punishing him because the truth embarrassed the university and the "scientists" that produced the dubious material that was widely reported by the media.

That these charlatans get media attention and recognition for scientifically fraudulent work apparently is of no concern for the left whingers except when they get caught. That this is happening on a grand scale at many universities is exactly why there is so much material for the sceptics. If those advocating for climate action had any grey matter between their ears they would be the ones weeding out these fraudsters before they did the climate sceptics work for them.

o sung,

While I appreciate you drawing attention to SR's vulgarity and his inability to grasp simple concepts, I usually just ignore his buffoonery as he does more damage to his credibility than mine.

Hopefully this court case has been instructive to those choosing to use extreme measures to censor the politically incorrect.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You opine;

“That during the disciplinary enquiries and court case the university never disputed the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims means that they accepted that PR's criticisms were correct and were only punishing him because the truth embarrassed the university”

What?

Why on earth would they bring up the veracity or otherwise of Ridd's claims when they had absolutley no bearing on the case? Ridd publicly accused and impugned another employee of the university who made a formal complaint as was his right. The university then sought to have Ridd act in a more collegiate manner and instead he doubled down. This was all about his behaviour not the content of his work.

You may think differently but this was not the position the judge who found in favour of Ridd.

Time to give it a rest but not before acknowledging and applauding the union who managed to enshrine those protections within the EBA.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Just a quick word of advice, directly accusing someone of being an anti-Semite just for being critical of the actions of the Israeli government is utterly vulgar and contemptible, and hardly compares to a bit of familiar Australian vernacular/aphorism tossed at you.

Credibility, a pretty hard thing to ever recover once gone.

G'day there HASBEEN...

Yup, I guess many of us oldies from the Conservative 'Right' should be forever grateful, for possessing the wisdom of being on the enlightened side of politics. Rather than floundering about in the detritus, and delusions, that many of our good friends on the 'Left' seem to do?

Well there you are folks.

SR wants our scientists to behave in a " more collegiate manner". So to hell with truth, & honest scientific reporting, it is much more important manner to cover up lies & incompetency. After all, next years grants depend on presenting a solid front. Telling it as it really is has no benefit in the money gathering.

No wonder our community is falling apart, when out so called leaders have only one goal, getting tax payer funds in their pockets.

Disgusting!

Hasbeen,

Collegiality might have worked better for Galileo, it might have saved him from the rack. Everything could still be orbiting around the Earth if it wasn't or him and his pesky questioning.

Hmmmm, the rack: maybe the pseudo-'left' could re-invigorate punishments for 'haters', i.e. people with different points of view, at universities and elsewhere.

Yeah, that might shut them up. Bring back 'collegiality' now ! It's that or the rack !

Joe

Credibility, a pretty hard thing to ever recover once gone.
SteeleRedux,
And even harder to acquire when relying on quotes by others !

Marine physicist Peter Ridd has been victorious
in his case for unfair dismissal against James
Cook University, however people need to note that
his views as a climate sceptic were NOT on trial.

The controversial scientist was sacked by JCU in 2018
after being censured for allegedly breaching the
University's Code of Conduct.

Among JCU's grievances were that Dr Ridd had publicly
criticised the work of colleagues including
telling Sky News in 2017 that "scientific organisations
like the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the
ARC Centre for Coral Reef Studies can no longer be trusted."

Dr Ridd's controversial views also include that poor water
quality and climate change are not significant threats to
the future of the reef.

But Judge Salvatore Vasta ruled in the Federal Circuit Court
of Australia that the University's sacking of Dr Ridd was
unlawful to to a clause in Ridd's Enterprise Bargaining
Agreement. And that JCU had "not understood the
whole concept of intellectual freedom" in respect to
that agreement.

Dr Ridd's supporters were quick to claim a win for academic
freedom and freedom of speech. And before long some were
even equating the court victory to a win for climate change
scepticism.

However Dr Ridd's views on the impact of climate change
on the Great Barrier Reef were NOT on trial in this case.
The judge's decision was confined entirely to Dr Ridd's
industrial rights and the judge made no comment on the
validity (or not) of Dr Ridd's climate views.

It may help some of you to read the following link in
full:

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

Dear Hasbeen,

You spouted;

“Well there you are folks. SR wants our scientists to behave in a " more collegiate manner".”

What on earth are you making up now? All I did was tell you of the approach of the university as detailed in the judgement and you are now saying it was my position?

What drivel.

And this from you is bloody ridiculous;

“No wonder our community is falling apart, when out so called leaders have only one goal, getting tax payer funds in their pockets.”

The buckets of cash being splashed around by our mining magnates directed at climate misinformation, which is then lapped up by the likes of you, blows away any modest monies our university staff get.

Instead our so called 'leaders' are dragging lumps of coal into our parliament to satisfy their donors and your are going after uni staff on well less than half the wage?

Do you ever think you are beating up on the wrong people? You really have swallowed hook, line, sinker, and the whole bloody fisherman haven't you.

Once more I am vindicated.
In the past I have been attacked and vilified for daring to question the veracity of such things as Climate Change, to name but one.
I have always maintained that if there is not complete agreement on an issue, especially something to do with the scientific world, it leaves doubts and questions, and absolutely so, no more than when your peers question you or your work.
Such is the case with Dr Ridd.
Nothing to do with his court case but everything to do with him being sacked, because he dared to go against the flow of the scientific community.
So here we have a clear and un-ambiguous case as a perfect example of what I have been trying to get across to the thick heads out there.
We can finally put this one to bed, and all my detractors can finally go and eat umble pie.
So to one very antagonistic and contrary mis-guided person out there, the next time someone questions a statement which is deemed clearly flawed, it is best to give the questioner the benefit of the doubt, because we never know, if it is questionable, then it is not to be taken at face value and must be challenged.

SR,

If you read the judgement in the case, the judge pointed out that at no point did JCU ever challenge the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims in any of the action that it took against him, and in doing so excluded this from the consideration of the case, which essentially means that the veracity of PR's claims were not in dispute either in the court case OR in the disciplinary case against him. For laymen, this means that all parties accepted their veracity.

As the veracity was accepted the offended scientists had no ability to sue for defamation, and their only recourse was to complain to the administration, and the only possible charge JCU could dredge up was being uncollegial.

In small words, Ridd was being sacked for stating the truth because it offended the dodgy scientists.

Secondly, stating the truth is not vulgar, and if you had "just criticised Israel" you would not be accused of anti semitism, your robust defence of Hamas's barbarism sealed the deal.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“If you read the judgement in the case, the judge pointed out that at no point did JCU ever challenge the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims in any of the action that it took against him, and in doing so excluded this from the consideration of the case, which essentially means that the veracity of PR's claims were not in dispute either in the court case OR in the disciplinary case against him. For laymen, this means that all parties accepted their veracity.”

No it doesn't. How many times are you going to run this?

As an example the union said in its statement many of their members disagreed with Ridd's vocal position on issues around climate change but they were staunchly supported his right to do so. The position you are putting is that because they did not openly dispute them then they must now agree with his position? This is a ludicrous argument you keep trying to run and you should have more sense.

SR,

I'm confused, as usual: so the University Council of James Cook didn't dispute the veracity of Ridd's findings, but some in the tertiary education union supported his right to expound on them, even if they disagreed with them ?

Chalk and cheese ? Apples and oranges ?

Joe

There are different things at play here.

Dr Ridd is respected in the field of his studies in
marine sedimentology despite some differences in
opinion about his results.

That is standard in all fields of science according to
marine scientist Jon Brodie from the Centre of Excellence
for Coral Reef Studies.

However Dr Ridd's comments on the overall health of the
reef and his harsh criticism of coral-bleaching science
has caused many scientists to question the limits of
his expertise.

What was/is being questioned is Dr Ridd's arguing
publicly that the Great Barrier Reef is -

" Öne of the best-preserved ecosystems in the whole world."

This needs to be backed up by very solid evidence especially
when it flies in the face of strong scientific consensus.
And the vast majority of reef sicentists disagree with
Dr Ridd's views.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

I was going to put forward a few more points however
I've decided that it would be a waste of time.
All I can politely suggest is that people
read the link I gave earlier - to get a full grasp
of the situation involved here.

Dear Loudmouth,

Checked what I wrote and there is no confusion there. Perhaps you are being deliberately bewildered. But if not might I suggest a reread of what I posted.

SR and Foxy,

Here are some snippets from the judgement:

"The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination. But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has written."

"Professor Ridd has noted that these organisations have not put anything forward to rebut any of the criticisms he has made. Instead, complaints have been made ostensibly about the manner in which he has challenged those organisations."

"Professor Peter Ridd was the head of physics at JCU from 2009 until 2016. He managed the University’s marine geophysical laboratory for 15 years. His qualifications are detailed in his affidavit and there has been no realistic challenge to those qualifications."

In short JCU found no grounds to claim that PR's claims were incorrect or that he was unqualified to make these claims, and given that only a moron at JCU would not have made this an issue if they could, only a moron would try to claim that this was arbitrarily excluded from the disciplinary procedure or the case.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Come on mate take off the blinkers. Most of the criticism from Ridd of the two scientists was not around the impacts of climate change but rather runoff. Ridd has shared a platform with a farming industry spokesperson and tried to make the case that the studies conducted thus far into sediment and nutrient runoff from cane fields etc wasn't robust enough to tighten regulations around the contamination.

So the climate change stuff was a virtual red-herring, admittedly taken up by the antiGW crowd with gusto. This was the honeywell of self promotion that Ridd got sucked into. Nothing wrong with that as we ae all human, but the judge's comments need to be framed in this context.

But look at you, some innocuous statement about Ridd's qualifications not being in dispute and then you saying this means all Ridd's pronouncements about climate change are suddenly proven is absolutely moronic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Come on mate take off the blinkers. Most of the criticism from Ridd of the two scientists was not around the impacts of climate change but rather runoff. Ridd has shared a platform with a farming industry spokesperson and tried to make the case that the studies conducted thus far into sediment and nutrient runoff from cane fields etc wasn't robust enough to tighten regulations around the contamination.

So the climate change stuff was a virtual red-herring, admittedly taken up by the antiGW crowd with gusto. This was the honeywell of self promotion that Ridd got sucked into. Nothing wrong with that as we are all human, but the judge's comments need to be framed in this context.

But look at you, some innocuous statement about Ridd's qualifications not being in dispute and then you saying this means all Ridd's pronouncements about climate change are suddenly proven. This is absolutely moronic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Spin. Spin. Spin as fast as your nimble little fingers will allow.

SR,

I believe it's safe to say that this type of conduct gives rise to factional favoring.
It seems obvious that, other factors aside, Ridd might just be pulling for one side and his colleagues just might be pulling for another.
Making it obvious to some, as to what is going on, and frustrating for others, for the same reasons and constraints.
All it means to me is that "expert" submissions, whether GW, CC or anything else for that matter, is now tainted, as it cannot be trusted any more, if merely based on this case.
It has exposed the antics of those we trust to advise us un-conditionally, free of fear or favour.
It's a sad world.

SR,

There you go off again half cocked. I never mentioned climate change or global warming. I was talking about the merits of the JCU vs Ridd case.

That you chose to flippantly reject one cherry pick fragment of my post shows that you are on the ropes, and Judges generally try not to include irrelevant details in their judgements which are already long enough.

The facts are:

1- JCU was either unwilling or unable to challenge PR on the facts of his criticisms of his colleagues. Given that if his claims were false JCU's case against him would be far far stronger, there is no reasonable doubt that the latter was true.

2- JCU made it clear that they had no problem what PR said, only the way he openly criticised his colleagues.

3- JCU cherry picked PR's statements for disciplinary purposes and ignored the body of his claims, and ignored the dodgy work of the offended scientists.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You have kept saying you had not mentioned climate change but this was in your first post;

““The sum awarded reflects the appalling nature of JCU’s treatment of Dr Ridd and vindicates Peter Ridd’s fight for academic freedom, free speech and integrity of climate science and peer review,” said Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at the IPA.

This is a warning to left whingers that censorship has its price.”

Why did you lead with a quote about the “integrity of climate science”?

The latest censorship of an Australian in the UK is not Democratic censorship.
Julian Assange is to be kept locked up without charge.
I have always been pro British but not now due to British treatment of Assange.
In protest I now think tourism to Britain should be black listed by Democratic people if Assange is kept locked up without charge for committing a crime.
http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/absconding-assange-to-remain-behind-bars/news-story/05938f5140d9445fea49f1a1f273f21a

SR,

* . climate change and global warming;

* . the integrity of climate science.

Bit of a stretch to equate the two for discussion topics ?

Joe

Julian Assange is to be kept locked up without charge.
JF Aus,
If he isn't charged, what are the actual grounds he's held for then ? There's been so much on his situation but what is it exactly he's done wrong apart from just flexing his Leftist indoctrination ?
I see in the News there are three Australians locked up in Iran now. What are they gulity of apart from being selfie posters ?

Dear Loudmouth,

Not at all. I think the scientists involved in the IPCC are doing a great job despite serious attempts to discredit their work by fossil fuel industry owners and the politicians they have in their pockets.

I for one hold them in high regard. Why don't you?

SR,

In spite of your lame efforts to take my quote out of context, my posts have always been about academic freedom and scientific integrity.

I have always stated that I believe that the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions, and that reasonable action needs to be taken. The difference between myself and the radical left whingers is what action to take.

Because the demands of climate change are going to be huge on society and the science is so complicated, there is a need to ensure that "studies" that are published in the media have been performed rigorously as the consequences of the charlatans being exposed puts the work of all the genuine scientists under a cloud.

The action by JCU to silence PR was an action that not only violated the academic freedom of the university, but also trashed its reputation. The case will cost JCU far more than the $1.2m it has had to pay out to PR.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“The action by JCU to silence PR was an action that not only violated the academic freedom of the university, but also trashed its reputation. The case will cost JCU far more than the $1.2m it has had to pay out to PR.”

Well no, it violated the enterprise bargaining agreement put in place by a union which cares about these things a little more than the university did.

But in the end I'm not sure that asking for disputes to be considered in a collegiate manner rather than on Sky News was entirely unreasonable. Whether it was a sacking offence is where the debate has ended up. I'm not sure that we or indeed science is served well by having every scientific dispute egged on and championed by our capricious media.

I will admit to being a bit disappointed in Ridd that he has chosen the money over reinstatement. I hope it isn't because of a better offer to be a commentator and a cause celeb for our right wing media.

SR,

Considering the clause in the EBA was about academic freedom, this does not detract from my statement either about academic freedom or JCU trashing its reputation.

That JCU violated the clause in the EBA essentially made this case a slam dunk for Peter Ridd, however, if this clause was not in the contract, the arguments would probably have been more focused on the aspect of unfair dismissal and I believe that PR would have still prevailed.

Secondly, I don't believe that the university offered to take PR back, in either case, the working relationship had clearly broken down and as you have pointed out PR now has a viable career shredding the bogus "research" that left whinge "researchers" churn out to support their agendas.

Finally, As these bogus research reports had been released to the media and been reported on world wide, PR had every right after raising his concerns to make them public.

I wrote previously;

“I will admit to being a bit disappointed in Ridd that he has chosen the money over reinstatement. I hope it isn't because of a better offer to be a commentator and a cause celeb for our right wing media.”

A vain hope it turns out.

“Senator Susan McDonald has had to reschedule a planned appearance with Dr Peter Ridd and the Green Shirts Movement at an event intending to lobby against the Queensland Labor government’s environmental regulations, which they claim are “anti-farming”.
McDonald and James McGrath have a Senate motion attempting to set up an inquiry into the issue – and it looks like the LNP senators are seeking to find support for Ridd’s controversial claim that farmland pollution does not significantly damage the Great Barrier Reef.
Ridd has been on a speaking tour, supported by rightwing commentators and sugarcane industry managers, campaigning against proposed state regulations limiting sediment and chemical runoff on the reef coast.
An expert panel led by the former chief scientist, Ian Chubb, has warned that Ridd is misrepresenting robust science about the plight of the Great Barrier Reef.”
Guardian Australia

SR,

beware of the "he said, she said" factor.
We plebs are in no position to judge as we are not scientists, and especially not in their particular chosen field of expertise.
I would caution anyone to take sides, because as you have pointed out in other topics, where is the proof?
Although that is the conundrum, if they are all EXPERTS, then who do we believe?
You may want to not believe Ridd because of his alleged association and financing by the relevant farmers accused of damaging the reef.
I might suggest, until more studies and research are done on this matter that we remain cautiously aware and not get drawn into an unwinnable argument.

SR,

I also regret that JCU didn't offer to reinstate Peter Ridd, but I am heartened to hear that Peter is able to assist the farmers challenge Labor's dodgy laws based on bogus research by amoral researchers.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Well to be fair Ridd didn't seek reinstatement either.

"I should let you all know that we are no longer seeking reinstatement because JCU’s response since the decision indicates that if I went back, I would have a very troubled existence that would also threaten all my colleagues in the Physics Department."

SR

"we are no longer seeking reinstatement" would indicate that PR originally was seeking reinstatement. I would guess that the conditions JCU was asking for this reinstatement was unacceptable.