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?