Peter Ridd's Fight for Freedom of Speech on Climate Change

Post Reply New Topic

The crisis of freedom of speech:


https://youtu.be/QbKa015q4cI

What an idiot. Everyone (including crackpots like Ridd) have a de jure right to free expression of political ideas without censure by the State. Nowhere in the Australian (or American) Constitution is it expressed or implied that you have an inalienable right to have your crackpot ideas taken seriously, or that you're entitled to be free of criticism and being considered a crackpot (with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto) as a result of said free expression, or that you're somehow entitled to compel other people to provide you with a soapbox and bullhorn with which you can express your crackpot ideas.

NASA: 97% scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real.

I think that folk's time would be much better spent educating themselves on basic science rather than wasting it perusing stupid fact-free conspiracy theories on YouTube.

I am no expert of Australian freedom of speech rights beyound the fact that they like pretty most every country has a lot less guarenteed rights then the US.

If he was employed by a private college there would be no freedom of speech issue. Private companies can fire you in most cases for disagreeing with the company view ie not fitting in with the team. As a public university firing someone for their beliefs is a backhanded indirect method of government prohibition of speech. So is not funding some group an argument used in America by supporters of legislation defunding entities supporting the Boycottt, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

Also there is no “hate speech” issue here.

It will be interesting to see how the Australian courts rule and I think eventually the US Supreme Court in a similar case.

<playful mode activated>
It seems we have an open mind here...
Oh my...
Such fresh air compared to the previous poster...<sigh>
Nice to have a moderate, sensible, non-biased, non-judgemental non-argumentative and civil contribution...
<gives ASPartOfMe a gold star>

We are considering a concept which may be a little difficult for some to appreciate:
The actual censoring of freedom of speech...

Seemingly, Cook University can't Ridd themselves of the need to stifle diversity of thought, even though the working conditions/contract expressly permit such freedom...
*That* is the focus of this thread...
Is that understood, Mr Piobaire?... <hands of hips> <stern look>

And no...
Neither you nor anyone else will govern what I can and can't investigate on the internet or elsewhere...
Well, not until the Chinese invade Australia at least...

In the meantime, Mr Piobaire will have to suck up the fact that his intimidatory manner will be met with defiance and a vigour surpassing the energy of a thousand suns....

Rise up, fellow rationalists!
We shall defend our intellectual integrity, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender to totalitarian intellectual tyranny!

<steps off soapbox>
<exit stage centre>

Peter Ridd Court Case | Day 1 Update from Brisbane


https://youtu.be/9BgYtapBSzE

Lawyers acting for sacked James Cook University professor Peter Ridd say the university sought to turn its disciplinary process into a “star chamber” after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact global warming had on the Great Barrier Reef.

Professor Ridd, who worked at the university for 40 years, has challenged the dismissal in the Federal Court, saying the university breached its own enterprise agreement which allowed all staff to express controversial or unpopular views.

The physics professor’s lawyers say the Townsville-based university, which is renowned for its marine science expertise, dismissed Professor Ridd in 2018 for breaching its code of conduct.

But they argue that the code was secondary to the enterprise agreement.

Barrister Stuart Wood said his client had every right to criticise his colleagues and the university’s perceived lack of quality assurance processes.

The first alleged breach of the code occurred in April 2016, when Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege that images given to the media by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority were misleading.

Professor Ridd said the images of bleached coral reefs near Stone Island, off the coast of Bowen in north Queensland, were misleading because they showed poorly affected corals, which were selected over nearby healthy coral and used to show “broad scale decline” of reef health.

Field technicians working for Professor Ridd took photos in the same vicinity as the bleaching pictures supplied by the university and GBRMPA which showed “spectacular coral living there”.

Professor Ridd told the journalist in the email that the use of the pictures was “a dramatic example of how scientific organisations are happy to spin a story for their own purposes”.

He also said his colleague Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, would “wriggle and squirm” when asked to explain the discrepancies in the images.

“Mr Ridd said the photos being used were not, in his view, an accurate representation of what was going on at the site,” Mr Wood said.

“The complaint was that there should be much more care taken when representing the photos to ensure the story is not based on sensationalism but on science.”

Professor Ridd was sceptical of the photos and warnings around the health of the reef, which had undergone extensive bleaching, because his own academic work had shown coral health was not affected by sediment runoff or increased water temperatures, as claimed by other scientists

After receiving a warning from the university, Professor Ridd was censured again in November 2017 after appearing on Sky News and making similar claims about the lack of quality assurance processes on coral reef science.

At one stage Professor Ridd was told he could not even discuss the proceedings with his wife, leading Mr Wood to compare the proceedings to a coercive “star chamber”.

Source: PETER RIDD’S FIGHT FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM BEGINS IN COURT

An objective assessment of the "bleached" coral reefs, vis-a-vis "healthy" coral reefs, by impartial scientists, would be good.

I really believe we should seek to keep politics out of science.

I'll second that!

https://youtu.be/HJwu59hK3Sw

https://youtu.be/ARoteL6-LW4

It's looking good for freedom of speech...

In a quick google search, I can't even find anyone debating the state of the reef - but a lot of sources usually held in high esteem, like nature magazine, describing rather drastic and widespread coral bleaching.
Freedom of speech aside... Is he right?

And does the visual impression actually do justice to the damage done? Meaning: did the scientists pick their picture because it looked particularly impressive even to laypeople, while the rest of the area was in ill shape, but the shape would have been hard to assess by laypeople (and possibly Mr. Ridd?)

Ridd has been investigating environmental consideration for over 40 years...
It is a passion for him...
I don't have any PHDs, yet I am a god damn genius in many areas...

Before we skid off the topic, I suggest we don't...

It is *factual* that the photos presented were fakes...
I.E. Fake news...
End of story...

If I got thst correctly, they were a point sample made to appear as representative of the whole - but not fake.
They were incorrectly used to illustrate something they didn't represent (i.e., the whole of the area).
That's a misleading use, but it doesn't mean the image is fake.
And it doesn't mean the news is fake, either.
It just means that the image doesn't support the news.

The photos were fake in that they were misleading...
End of story...<sigh>