Peter Ridd has won his case against JCU on all counts.

He was fired for being, amongst other things, uncollegial. He wouldn't toe the JCU line and criticised other scientists work.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ridd-wins-document-768x1037.jpg

Some background -

"The dispute between Professor Peter Ridd and James Cook University is an issue of importance well beyond the immediate matter of academic freedom of speech. The attempt by the JCU administration to silence Professor Ridd is misguided, damaging to the reputation of the university and of questionable legality.  Worse yet, it ignores a clear opportunity to turn the matter into a positive outcome for JCU, Professor Ridd and the wider community. It is time for the Governing Council of JCU to exercise its oversight responsibilities and intervene with the administration to change course.

The key concern of Professor Ridd is the widespread acceptance of unverified research claims as a basis for government policy with no critical assessment.  This problem in particularly rife in the environmental sciences and much of the management of the Great Barrier Reef is founded on it. That the problem of dubious science is not just a fringe opinion is evidenced by several recent extensive reviews in leading scientific journals. These studies have found that about half of reports published in leading journals fail to yield similar results when attempts have been made to replicate them. In view of the numerous complexities, uncertainties and inherent variabilities of environmental phenomena it can be safely assumed that GBR research will not be a shining exception."

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/02/peter-ridd-vs-jcu-obligation-opportunity/

I'm glad he got his day in court I know you have been talking about him for awhile..
Just interested did the court say he was right in his scientific views or just that the University couldn't legally tell him not to have his views ? ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:

Just interested did the court say he was right in his scientific views or just that the University couldn't legally tell him not to have his views ?

So tell us how judges determine scientific truth. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But science is advanced by people having alternative views - not by attempting to shut them up. Why were the climate science community so outraged they went to the Uni to voice their concerns and the attempt to gag him?

Evidence the new paper on 400 years of coral bleaching - that puts paid to the claims of it being a new type of event.

lee wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:04pm: Just interested did the court say he was right in his scientific views or just that the University couldn't legally tell him not to have his views ? So tell us how judges determine scientific truth. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

so I take that as a no... they only said that the university couldn't censor him, not that his views where correct. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

they only said that the university couldn't censor him, not that his views where correct.

Yes. So why did JCU go down that path? Why try to gag him? Surely if the science was correct it was easily proven.

From my edit: "Evidence the new paper on 400 years of coral bleaching - that puts paid to the claims of it being a new type of event."

lee wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:19pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:17pm: they only said that the university couldn't censor him, not that his views where correct. Yes. So why did JCU go down that path? Why try to gag him? Surely if the science was correct it was easily proven. From my edit: "Evidence the new paper on 400 years of coral bleaching - that puts paid to the claims of it being a new type of event."

no idea, could be lots of things, ego being the forefront that comes to mind, after all we are talking about a bunch of academics….. when the University agrees with what he said, and as you say it can be easily proven right or wrong then we will have a story.
Until then all we have is that the university was wrong to tell him to stop and fire him.
No proof or admission that he is right  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:26pm:

no idea, could be lots of things, ego being the forefront that comes to mind, after all we are talking about a bunch of academics…

Ego. Yes. Absolutely. Couldn't have their pet theories questioned. They are supposed to be scientists, right. That's what comes with the turf. Hypothesis. hypothesis testing.

lee wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:26pm: no idea, could be lots of things, ego being the forefront that comes to mind, after all we are talking about a bunch of academics… Ego. Yes. Absolutely. Couldn't have their pet theories questioned. They are supposed to be scientists, right. That's what comes with the turf. Hypothesis. hypothesis testing.

yes so damn human of them, so uncivilized…..

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 7:05pm:

yes so damn human of them, so uncivilized…..

Ahh, yes. The Stephen Schneider defence.

"On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-“double-ethical-bind”-of-climate-change-communication/

or excerpts

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

To be a climate scientist or a climate activist - that is the question.

I guess because most stuff we do is result based , there is always the chance that results will be squewed. Mix money into the mix and then pride and ego of individuals, its a wonder there is any real science  ;)


I suppose that's why they do peer reviews , in the hope to bring about real answers

It would make it easy for the rest of us if they could register Peer Reviews and have a list of who have disproved them or who has gotten the same results.

I find it very hard when someone quotes a peer review, if it's considered good or debunked. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:04pm: Just interested did the court say he was right in his scientific views or just that the University couldn't legally tell him not to have his views ? So tell us how judges determine scientific truth. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But science is advanced by people having alternative views - not by attempting to shut them up. Why were the climate science community so outraged they went to the Uni to voice their concerns and the attempt to gag him? Evidence the new paper on 400 years of coral bleaching - that puts paid to the claims of it being a new type of event.

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 7:43am:

I suppose that's why they do peer reviews , in the hope to bring about real answers

Yeah. Like all those peer-reviewed "reef" papers that said bleaching was a new type of event. Now shown to be at least 400 years old. Probably more givern it has been warmer in the past.

That seems to imply it is more like Pal Review. ;)

And then of course those papers that said among others that Tuvalu was sinking.

lee wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 12:10pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 17th, 2019 at 7:43am: I suppose that's why they do peer reviews , in the hope to bring about real answers Yeah. Like all those peer-reviewed "reef" papers that said bleaching was a new type of event. Now shown to be at least 400 years old. Probably more givern it has been warmer in the past. That seems to imply it is more like Pal Review. ;) And then of course those papers that said among others that Tuvalu was sinking.

Please provide evidence on any papers referring to bleaching as a new type of event. Or are you just talking nonsense again.
Bleaching is becoming more common as the world warms, but it is not a new event

Ok. I gilded the lily.

Here is what they really said -

"Aerial surveys of more than 500 coral reefs from Cairns to Papua New Guinea reveal that the most pristine section of the Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing the worst, mass bleaching event in its history, with the overwhelming majority of reefs being ranked in the most severe bleaching category."

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/coral-bleaching-taskforce-documents-most-severe-bleaching-on-record

So without doing a post-mortem they have defined in at the worst in 500,000 years? What error bars are attached to that? What level of smoothing did they apply to the "data", if indeed "data" was used?

Or should only sceptics be pilloried for gilding the lily? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 11:38am:

Bleaching is becoming more common as the world warms, but it is not a new event

How far back does your history of the reef extend? Since 1980?

That's a poor try even for you


lee wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 12:10pm:

Yeah. Like all those peer-reviewed "reef" papers that said bleaching was a new type of event. Now shown to be at least 400 years old.

Now show me where anyone has said it is a new event....

Poor Barney. trying to be relevant.

Never mind petal.

I know you have trouble with the written word.

What part of "I gilded the lily" didn't you understand? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Were the words too big for you?

So tell us why the "reef scientists" should say it is the worst bleaching in "history". ;)

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 1:11pm:

What part of "I gilded the lily" didn't you understand? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

admission of lying accepted

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 21^st, 2019 at 3:16pm:

admission of lying accepted

So by that standard the "reef scientists" are guilty of lying about "is currently experiencing the worst, mass bleaching event in its history".

And yet for that no demur from you. Hypocrisy much. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D