Quote:

Dr Peter Ridd Wins $1.2 Million In Damages For Unlawful Sacking By JCU For Questioning Climate Science The Institute of Public Affairs has welcomed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court in relation to Dr Peter Ridd’s case against James Cook University. 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. “James Cook University must now rethink its stated plans to prolong this ugly dispute by appealing the decision. Dr Ridd won this case on all 17 counts. It is time for JCU to accept the decision and move on.” “The very fact that an Australian university is willing to force the weight of an entire administration backed by taxpayer funds to stifle an academic’s freedom of speech sends a massive chilling effect to any academic engaging in public debate in Australia.” “James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities. A freedom of information request lodged by the Institute of Public Affairs with James Cook University revealed that the University has already spent at least $630,000 on legal fees in the Dr Peter Ridd case. “Dragging this matter to a higher court would be unfair not only to Dr Ridd, but to JCU’s students who expect the university to spend its resources on teaching and research, not pointless legal frolics.” “It is time for JCU’s council to step in to restore sanity, and save the university from spending millions of taxpayer dollars to exert control over a fine and sincere 30-year employee.” “If not, Education Minister Dan Tehan must intervene and tell JCU to withdraw its appeal because it is an inappropriate expenditure of taxpayer funds and will do irreparable harm to the international reputation of Australia’s higher education sector,” Mr Rozner said.

BOOM!!!  :)

This should be in the Environment forum.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:

This should be in the Environment forum.

Since when does Freedom of Speech belong in environment?

Stop whining and put in some “input” ..

The lefts lust for authoritarian power on display.

The lefties at JCU would have sent the good doctor to a gulag for re education if they had their way.

Thank heavens the noble capitalists are in charge , and not the ideologically possessed leftie intellectuals .

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:

This should be in the Environment forum.

Its got F All To Do EV  its about free speech moron! >:( >:(

FRED. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 1:11pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 1:01pm: This should be in the Environment forum. Its got F All To Do EV  its about free speech moron! >:( >:(

It's about climate science being censored.
Retract your abuse.
Apologise.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 12:50pm:

Quote: Dr Peter Ridd Wins $1.2 Million In Damages For Unlawful Sacking By JCU For Questioning Climate Science The Institute of Public Affairs has welcomed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court in relation to Dr Peter Ridd’s case against James Cook University. 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. “James Cook University must now rethink its stated plans to prolong this ugly dispute by appealing the decision. Dr Ridd won this case on all 17 counts. It is time for JCU to accept the decision and move on.” “The very fact that an Australian university is willing to force the weight of an entire administration backed by taxpayer funds to stifle an academic’s freedom of speech sends a massive chilling effect to any academic engaging in public debate in Australia.” “James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities. A freedom of information request lodged by the Institute of Public Affairs with James Cook University revealed that the University has already spent at least $630,000 on legal fees in the Dr Peter Ridd case. “Dragging this matter to a higher court would be unfair not only to Dr Ridd, but to JCU’s students who expect the university to spend its resources on teaching and research, not pointless legal frolics.” “It is time for JCU’s council to step in to restore sanity, and save the university from spending millions of taxpayer dollars to exert control over a fine and sincere 30-year employee.” “If not, Education Minister Dan Tehan must intervene and tell JCU to withdraw its appeal because it is an inappropriate expenditure of taxpayer funds and will do irreparable harm to the international reputation of Australia’s higher education sector,” Mr Rozner said. BOOM!!!  :)

It will be overturned on appeal.

$835,000 for future wages is grossly excessive.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 1:19pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 12:50pm: Quote: Dr Peter Ridd Wins $1.2 Million In Damages For Unlawful Sacking By JCU For Questioning Climate Science The Institute of Public Affairs has welcomed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court in relation to Dr Peter Ridd’s case against James Cook University. 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. “James Cook University must now rethink its stated plans to prolong this ugly dispute by appealing the decision. Dr Ridd won this case on all 17 counts. It is time for JCU to accept the decision and move on.” “The very fact that an Australian university is willing to force the weight of an entire administration backed by taxpayer funds to stifle an academic’s freedom of speech sends a massive chilling effect to any academic engaging in public debate in Australia.” “James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities. A freedom of information request lodged by the Institute of Public Affairs with James Cook University revealed that the University has already spent at least $630,000 on legal fees in the Dr Peter Ridd case. “Dragging this matter to a higher court would be unfair not only to Dr Ridd, but to JCU’s students who expect the university to spend its resources on teaching and research, not pointless legal frolics.” “It is time for JCU’s council to step in to restore sanity, and save the university from spending millions of taxpayer dollars to exert control over a fine and sincere 30-year employee.” “If not, Education Minister Dan Tehan must intervene and tell JCU to withdraw its appeal because it is an inappropriate expenditure of taxpayer funds and will do irreparable harm to the international reputation of Australia’s higher education sector,” Mr Rozner said. BOOM!!!  :) It will be overturned on appeal. $835,000 for future wages is grossly excessive.

bullshyte ... again.

future wages & damage to reputation.

Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science.

Court documents at the time said Dr Ridd described his colleague in an email as "not having any clue about the weather", and that he "will give the normal doom science about the Great Barrier Reef".

Dr Ridd said in another email that JCU, along with other universities, were "Orwellian in nature".

In his judgment in April this year, Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta found Dr Ridd's termination was unlawful, as JCU's enterprise agreement protected his comments over and above the university's code of conduct.

They are considering an appeal. they have 3 weeks from 5 September.

Having already spent about 630K  they will probably continue despite the bollocking they got from the court.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Court documents at the time said Dr Ridd described his colleague in an email as "not having any clue about the weather", and that he "will give the normal doom science about the Great Barrier Reef". Dr Ridd said in another email that JCU, along with other universities, were "Orwellian in nature". In his judgment in April this year, Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta found Dr Ridd's termination was unlawful, as JCU's enterprise agreement protected his comments over and above the university's code of conduct.

So were Rugby Australia in the wrong?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science.

That is precisely what he did.  He wouldn't toe the line on the GBR. He was told he was not "collegiate", that is he decried the JCU GBR findings.

"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"."

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

Despite what the ABC's version that his views on climate change were not on trial.  They were, they wanted to shut him up. His not being "collegiate", in other words his non-support for the climate - GBR meme were the reasons for his sacking.

His right to free speech, criticising the climate -  GBR meme was the cause of his firing.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science.

No he wasn’t. He was sacked for dissing colleagues and the University.

And the health of the GBR has been downgraded.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2019 at 5:17pm:

He was sacked for dissing colleagues and the University.

And their over the top claims of the death of the GBR.


Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2019 at 5:17pm:

And the health of the GBR has been downgraded

Actually it is upgraded. It is back from the dead. ;)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science.

He was sacked for criticizing the science(climate) & methods of a group at JCU regarding the health of corals on the GBR.

That they used their "Code of Conduct" to sack him is irrelevant..... as the court found in Ridds favour.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2019 at 5:17pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 2:50pm: Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science. No he wasn’t. He was sacked for dissing colleagues and the University. And the health of the GBR has been downgraded.

So his colleagues in a group are not to be criticized? Collective fraud chasing research funds?

And the downgrade is incorrect .... as Ridd was trying to point out all along.

Another group involved in this downgrade are Malcolms Turnbulls mates that he gave $450 million dollars to without due process - The Great Barrier Reef Foundation - full of corporate escapees not one scientist in it.

They are just blood suckers on the Climate Change Industry bandwagon.

lee wrote on Sep 14^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 2:50pm: Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science. That is precisely what he did.  He wouldn't toe the line on the GBR. He was told he was not "collegiate", that is he decried the JCU GBR findings. "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"." https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540 Despite what the ABC's version that his views on climate change were not on trial.  They were, they wanted to shut him up. His not being "collegiate", in other words his non-support for the climate - GBR meme were the reasons for his sacking. His right to free speech, criticising the climate -  GBR meme was the cause of his firing.

Obviously the denialists are desperate to make this a trial of climate science and claim some kind of victory, but it is in their nature to struggle with reality.

There is a whole MRB wasted to allow a gormless gullible gobshite to “struggle with reality.”

When will Environment be given to someone (NOT me) to make it what it could be?

When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen?

Quote:

When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen?

Huh?

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Quote: When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen? Huh?

Does this guy have a drinking problem? 

or maybe a fetish problem? :-/

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 8:25am:

lee wrote on Sep 14th, 2019 at 1:30pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 2:50pm: Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science. That is precisely what he did.  He wouldn't toe the line on the GBR. He was told he was not "collegiate", that is he decried the JCU GBR findings. "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"." https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540 Despite what the ABC's version that his views on climate change were not on trial.  They were, they wanted to shut him up. His not being "collegiate", in other words his non-support for the climate - GBR meme were the reasons for his sacking. His right to free speech, criticising the climate -  GBR meme was the cause of his firing. Obviously the denialists are desperate to make this a trial of climate science and claim some kind of victory, but it is in their nature to struggle with reality.

You are as fundamentalist with your Church of Climate Change as any radical Muslim is with Islam.

Gnads wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 10:23am:

freediver wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 8:25am: lee wrote on Sep 14th, 2019 at 1:30pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2019 at 2:50pm: Theres only one problem, he wasn't sacked for questioning climate science. That is precisely what he did.  He wouldn't toe the line on the GBR. He was told he was not "collegiate", that is he decried the JCU GBR findings. "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"." https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540 Despite what the ABC's version that his views on climate change were not on trial.  They were, they wanted to shut him up. His not being "collegiate", in other words his non-support for the climate - GBR meme were the reasons for his sacking. His right to free speech, criticising the climate -  GBR meme was the cause of his firing. Obviously the denialists are desperate to make this a trial of climate science and claim some kind of victory, but it is in their nature to struggle with reality. You are as fundamentalist with your Church of Climate Change as any radical Muslim is with Islam.

Is wikipedia also fundamentalist because of it's dogged insistence on truth and verification?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-220px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 10:32am:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears

And yet he won;t release the full data to sceptics. Only to pal reviewers.

That is the data for the graph plot and its origins.

Wiki is not something to be believed unilaterally.  That's why even students are told not to rely on it.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 8:25am:

Obviously the denialists are desperate to make this a trial of climate science and claim some kind of victory, but it is in their nature to struggle with reality.

First you would have to show who are "denialists". I have never said the world is not warming. I have said that CO2 plays a role.

Twist that as you will. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 11:42am:

freediver wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 10:32am: More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears And yet he won;t release the full data to sceptics. Only to pal reviewers. That is the data for the graph plot and its origins. Wiki is not something to be believed unilaterally.  That's why even students are told not to rely on it.

Who is "he"? You realise the hockey stick graph is a large collaborative effort, not a single man, right?

All Mann’s data and Fortran program are here and have been since 2003:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Quote: When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen? Huh?

Monk is having an episode  -

he'll dry out in a couple of days  -
when the cooking sherry is gone.

You still have not been able to refute a letter where I showed how Dubyne had lied to you or any of the other things I talked about.

Instead of slinging off at me in a weak and womanish way, man up and tell us what you think you gullible little idiot!

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Quote: When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen? Huh?

Don’t you know your own forum, FD?

early last week a crap thread about sex with a 3yo girl was started.

Now there is a thread about a woman having sex with a dog—see Extremism.

When will you do something about the Environment board? It was not meant to be the Dubyne MRB! Split off climate for Booby to adore Dubyne in and let adults discuss serious environmental problems.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 8:34am: Quote: When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen? Huh? Monk is having an episode  - he'll dry out in a couple of days  - when the cooking sherry is gone.

Can I expect an apology for this unwarranted attack, Booby? Or will you slime out of that too?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 2:12pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 8:34am: Quote: When will sex with 3yo and with dogs not happen? Huh? Don’t you know your own forum, FD? early last week a crap thread about sex with a 3yo girl was started. Now there is a thread about a woman having sex with a dog—see Extremism. When will you do something about the Environment board? It was not meant to be the Dubyne MRB! Split off climate for Booby to adore Dubyne in and let adults discuss serious environmental problems.

Would you like to rephrase the question? Is it people talking about sex with dogs on this forum that you want to stop?

Pedophilia and bestiality, that what you want to read on this forum of yours, FD?

It's a politics forum Monk. If it offends your delicate sensibilities, you know what to do. With any luck Aussie will be along with a suggestion for you.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 1:35pm:

All Mann’s data and Fortran program are here and have been since 2003: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

Must be a denialist judge then. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wow, anything goes in this forum. No subject too low.

Are you suggesting we should censor any talk about sex with dogs Monk?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 3:20pm:

Wow, anything goes in this forum. No subject too low.

Keep trying. Maybe you'll find what you are looking for. ;)