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.