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.