JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

JCU bans Prof Peter Ridd from criticizing scientific institutions. Defiant, he refuses, fights on!

UPDATE: Funding target reached already. Thank you!

I am astonished, very relieved and most importantly incredibly grateful for the support. I would also particularly like to thank Anthony, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Willie Soon, Benny Peiser and many others for getting the issue up on blogs and spreading the word.
Kind regards, Peter
_________________________

JCU is trying (and failing) to gag Peter Ridd from discussing why we can’t trust scientific organisations

Peter Ridd: In an era of dangerous groupthink in science, academic freedom and scientific integrity is increasingly under attack.

Last August Professor Peter Ridd said the unsayable — that we can no longer trust scientific institutions. His employer, James Cook University (JCU) could have explained why they were trustworthy, but instead they fired back with a formal censure and ordered him to be silent, effectively to stop him criticizing the current state of science or scientific institutions. Then knowing exactly how respectable, ethical, and scientific this is, they also ordered him not to mention the censure too. Let’s censor the censure!

If there was a crisis in science, what academic would be allowed to point it out?

It gets dirtier, apparently now they are even trawling through his private emails as well, hunting for more ammunition for their misconduct case. Who’s a bit desperate?

Hypothetically, if there was a crisis in modern science, with a failure to replicate results or a lack objectivity, this could cost the nation billions, risk the reef, slow medical research, and hurt our children, but  JCU have effectively said that no one they employ can talk about it. Does the state of science matter to JCU? Not as much as their right to issue prophecies, no hard questions asked, star on the tellie, and help their favourite political cause. (Science for Big-Government’s sake).

Obviously, Ridd is having none of this, and is determined to openly and brazenly breach both instructions. Tell the World! Furthermore, he’s taking the matter to the Federal Court, and raising funds to fight for free speech. (You can help!)

If Ridd loses, what person at any Australian university will be able to discuss systematic, cultural problems with the practice of science that are damaging our research and trashing the reputations of great institutions? JCU have a dismal record of isolating, blackbanning, and ousting people who disagree with the consensus (vale, Bob Carter!) This has to stop now.

Thou shalt not question the Cardinals of Scientificness!

From Peter Ridds site – the forbidden incriminating comment:

“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies – a lot of this is stuff is coming out, the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more.”

“I think that most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff they genuinely believe that there are problems with the reef, I just don’t think they’re very objective about the science they do, I think they’re emotionally attached to their subject and you know you can’t blame them, the reef is a beautiful thing.” — Sky News with Alan Jones, August 2017.

On the basis of these comments I was accused of not acting in a ‘collegial’ manner.

Ironically, Ridd had submitted a paper on exactly this topic, which was published a few months later in November in the Marine Pollution Bulletin. It’s a peer reviewed paper on the problems with peer review (among other things). Eleven days after it was published, JCU wrote saying he had engaged in serious misconduct and issued him with a “final censure”!

So that which can’t be said on a Sky News chat show can be published in a peer reviewed science journal. It might be good enough to pass expert review, but don’t mention it to “a shock jock”. Imagine if the public started to question the words of certified, authorized scientists? (Imagine if the public realized that all those certified, authorized scientists are only certified and authorized as long as they speak the Uni-commissars approved lines?)

From Peter Ridd:

The way I have been treated, if they get away with it, will have a serious chilling effect on future research and public discussion.

I am putting myself on the line – this action will be costly in terms of time and reputation – but I have spent my whole life fighting for scientific truth and I do not intend to stop now.

From Graham Lloyd in The Australian:

A revised statement of claim alleges JCU trawled through private email conversations in a bid to bolster its misconduct case against him.

“This is as much a case about free speech as it is about quality of science,” he said.

“I am very keen that the trawling of emails to dig up more dirt becomes known.”

  From The Institute of Public Affairs (who have been very supportive of Ridd from the outset):

JCU claimed that Professor Ridd’s comments denigrated the university and the university directed him to make no future such comments.

“The actions of James Cook University (JCU) follow a now-familiar pattern of behaviour by Australia’s universities.  The search for truth has been replaced by unquestioning allegiance to consensus, group-think, and orthodoxy.  The treatment of Professor Ridd by JCU is no different to what the University of Western Australia did to Bjorn Lomborg in 2015,” said Mr Roskam.

IPA research has found a worsening state of free speech on Australia’s university campuses. The IPA’s Free Speech on Campus Audit 2017 found 34 of Australia’s 42 universities are hostile to free speech on campus through their actions and policies.

Professor Ridd has launched a GoFundMe to fundraise the legal costs for action against James Cook University to protect his academic freedom to discuss integrity in science.

I spoke with Peter Ridd today. He’s calm, well spoken, and absolutely determined to get science back to where it should be. We can’t let the forces of groupthink win.

The group-thinking warmists who preach,
A consensus, will censure free speech,
And those who might dare,
Have their science laid bare,
They would gladly dismiss and impeach.

–Ruairi

REFERENCE

Larcomb, P. and Ridd, P. (2017) The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 126, January 2018, Pages 449-461https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.038

h/t Jim Simpson, George, Dave B, C Paul Barreria, Robber, and Martin Clark.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (120 votes cast)
JCU bans Prof Peter Ridd from criticizing scientific institutions. Defiant, he refuses, fights on!, 9.5 out of 10 based on 120 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yaavfx8d

112 comments to JCU bans Prof Peter Ridd from criticizing scientific institutions. Defiant, he refuses, fights on!

  • #
    tom0mason

    I hear an echo –
    “Eppur si muove”, that is, and yet it moves…

    120

    • #
      Extreme Hiatus

      This echo seems to fit the ‘Streisand Effect’:

      “The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.”

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

      On the bright side, I don’t think it would take too many courageous independent thinkers like Prof. Ridd to blow the whole thing open.

      On the down side, there doesn’t seem to be many like him. The process of ‘university’ indoctrination has produced quite a useless herd.

      230

    • #
      Peter C

      “Eppur si muove”, that is, and yet it moves…

      Attributed to Galileo Galilei after he had accepted the judgement of the Inquistion and was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life.

      30

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    If it cannot be discussed, it is not science. When such things come out of an institution, they give the lie to their names. They have nothing to do with science. Soon the witch trials will begin where being accused is proof of guilt. The only thing to be determined is the punishment. It begins with silencing and ends wiith execution.

    450

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      My American friends would surmise that JCU has drunk the kool-aid, probably related to matters of funding for current and future academic endeavors.

      Lots of zeros look so pretty, when they are strung out in a line on a cheque, especially when preceded by a significant integer.

      It is happening around the world. We are on the receiving end of the best organized, and best funded, misinformation exercise that money can buy.

      I wonder if JCU has received any grants from the Clinton Foundation? Or received any “encouragement” from individuals with money to invest? People, like George Soros, for example?

      520

      • #
        TdeF

        Actually, they hardly need it. Most universities are almost completely funded by our Green government. Science opinion can be bought. That is not science. Science is not about opinion.

        411

        • #
          TdeF

          This is in complete contrast to US universities where Professors have to raise funds for research, not just apply to the government, where private donation can dominate funding. Stanford in the centre of Silicon Valley and arguably the driving force receives $6Billion a year in donations. $100Million is a common private donation. Every other country is jealous. At the last Olympics, 1/4 of the US team attended Stanford, the university ranked #2 after Harvard. It is a magnet for talent.

          However if you want to live in the tropics, in Paradise and spend your days scuba diving around the Great Australian Barrier Reef, JCU has benefits which outweigh money. Climate Change and the Barrier Reef are therefore the hottest topics and even suggesting someone might be sensationalizing their research is hardly surprising.

          However they need threats which they and only they can fix. Malcolm Turnbull’s recent donation to ‘saving’ the reef is the direct result of a campaign of disaster news. As they found in Tahiti though with their own crown of thorns invasion, it is smarter and traditional and actually the healthy natural option to do nothing at all but hardly as profitable.

          291

          • #
            Dennis

            Federal money recently announced is $60 million, recently the Queensland Premier said …

            “Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk offered only lukewarm thanks to the Prime Minister, saying Queensland is spending four times the money.

            “Of course we welcome any additional funding to the reef but of course it’s my government that’s putting in place $275 million,” Ms Palaszczuk said.”

            100

          • #
            joseph

            TdeF,

            One talent the Stanford magnet attracted, Peter Duesberg, became one of the worlds’s top virologists, and he was the recipient of many of Stanford’s generous research grants. However, once he began to question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis the research grants became less generous, and in fact they just dried up altogether.

            Seems like it doesn’t matter where the money comes from sometimes.

            60

          • #
            David Maddison

            Yes, TdeF, “climate change” “research” is a sure way to obtain taxpayer funded holidays to exotic locations such as pacific tropical islands and Antarctica.

            70

  • #
    TdeF

    Great move, the GoFundMe approach. $25,000 of the $95,000 goal in just 22 hours. People wanted to know where to donate, myself included. As I wrote, courage is rare. And to be applauded and supported.

    310

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The James Cook University seems to think they are a law unto themselves. When the tide turns, as surely it will soon, then some of the staff will find out that getting rid of others because you don’t like their views can work for them too.

    310

    • #
      Another Ian

      Anyone see where they announced that the Vice Chancellor’s official title would now start with “Pope”?

      60

    • #

      I wonder if the JCU Vice-chancellor and some other senior staff have breached the Queensland Public sector Ethics Act which directly applies to all Qld Universities, Tafes, and state schools. see PDF]Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 – Queensland Legislation That link is comes up on Google and will download the Act in PDF format. If that does not work try this https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2014-07-01/act-1994-067

      60

      • #

        The second link works. Look at clause 6B -apolitical.
        I hope Prof Ridd’s lawyer refers to the Act in court.

        60

        • #
          Lewis p Buckingham

          There are powerful defenses available in Commonwealth law.
          https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/July/Historic_new_whistleblower_protection_laws
          .

          ‘Key features of the new law are:
          It has broad coverage across the Commonwealth public sector, including application to the Australian Public Service, statutory agencies, Commonwealth authorities, the Defence Force, Parliamentary departments and contracted service providers for Commonwealth contracts.
          Conduct is disclosable if it falls within the broad concept of wrong doing in the public sector. Conduct is not disclosable if it relates to political or expenditure matters with which a person disagrees. Thus the legislation does not provide a platform for people to agitate political grievances.
          Whistleblowers can disclose directly to their supervisors, as well as to the ‘disclosure officer’ of the agency.
          In addition to internal disclosures, it is possible to make a disclosure externally (such as to the media or a member of parliament) providing certain conditions apply. A whistleblower will still be protected if he goes public in circumstances believing that an investigation into his internal disclosure was inadequate. To gain protection, the whistleblower must disclose the wrongdoing internally first.’

          It would be interesting to see if the Commonwealth Funding to Universities makes them captive to this legislation.
          The Commonwealth certainly has Constitutional fiscal power to fund higher education.
          Even if universities argue they are not bound by whistleblower legislation, the precedent in justice remains.

          Queensland entertains similar legislation.
          https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/whistle-can-now-be-blown-louder-in-queensland/news-story/44d033ce6c6d9479ab63555704f887ff?sv=98683a2aa2905937b4c62c0069e9805e
          ‘The Queensland test is also more straightforward than the equivalent proposal in the federal Labor government’s proposed whistleblowing protection regime for federal public servants.’

          Could settlement on the steps of the court remain a safe option for the Uni?

          30

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    With what has happened to him at JCU seems to only prove the reality….

    Socialism has damaged science through the Big Lie of CAGW, and thankfully people are standing up to the Commissars wherever they are and refusing to cowtow to them, which is how it should be.

    Burnham wood has now come to Dunsinane….

    152

  • #
    michael hart

    I’m sure it would be helpful for all sides if the censoring authorities could actually make it clear in advance what views are acceptable or unacceptable, and which University employees this lack of freedom of thought/expression applies to.

    That way we could hasten the redefinition of which University Departments qualify for science funding and which qualify for arts & religious funding.

    220

  • #

    The issues raised here are not new. In fact, the whole notion of ‘objectivity’ has a long history. It is likely that humans cannot ever be objective, no matter how hard they try. We interpret the world through a variety of lenses, not least of which is the sociocultural milieu within which we live–to say little about the numerous psychological processes that impact our belief system and attitude formation. This is as true for scientists who claim to be objective in their research endeavours as it is for journalists who claim to be fighting fake news and only presenting the ‘truth’.

    As a graduate student some 30 years ago, I addressed the issue in a letter published in our university paper when confronting an academic’s call for increased academic freedom (in the self-serving guise of increased money and time). As I argue, in my letter: “…Researchers must keep in mind that their ideas and fundamental assumptions have been direct by external forces, both in and out of the scientific community. Pure objectivity, as supported by logical empiricists, does not exist. Humans live in a complex world of intersubjectivity. Since research is a subjective and interpretive enterprise, interpretations will inevitably be pluralistic in nature and there is no monopoly on truth. A diversity of interpretations is, therefore, both inevitable and necessary…”

    Anyone claiming to be objective has yet to confront the reality that they view the world through their own paradigm/worldview/scheme/etc. with its own particular prejudices and biases. It’s not easy to acknowledge that one’s view of the world is tainted by subjectivity that likely can’t ever be completely purged.

    Unfortunately, what I think we’re seeing in this particular issue and with the issue of ‘fake news’ is the struggles of the establishment trying desperately to maintain its authority and influence. And for the moment their attempts smell of authoritarianism at its worst.

    130

  • #
    ivan

    What an outstanding and courageous man

    360

  • #
    Ruairi

    The group-thinking warmists who preach,
    A consensus, will censure free speech,
    And those who might dare,
    Have their science laid bare,
    They would gladly dismiss and impeach.

    280

  • #
    el gordo

    Professor Peter Ridd implies coral bleaching is a beat-up based on a false premise, that humans are causing the bleaching by burning fossil fuels.

    In reality, as the good professor would no doubt agree, coral bleaching is caused by strong El Nino, western Pacific sea level fall and warm waters, all perfectly natural.

    I’ve included him in my Red Team, along with Judith Curry, Jennifer Marohasy, Ian Wilson and Stephen Wilde.

    280

  • #
    toorightmate

    Peter Ridd did not denigrate JCU.
    JCU denigrated JCU and still does.

    351

  • #
    C. Paul Barreira

    The JCU has several functions, according to the Queensland parliament. The first is “to provide education at university standard” and the sixth function, according to the Act (1997) is:

    to exploit commercially, for the university’s benefit, a facility or resource of the university, including, for example, study, research or knowledge, or the practical application of study, research or knowledge, belonging to the university, whether alone or with someone else;

    The would seem to be the place where the rot set in. That is, of course, assuming a fairly consistent notion of “education at university standard”, which it is now unreasonable so to do. But these are public questions and the public should offer suggestions regarding the future of such legislation as “The James Cook University Act 1997″.

    Personally, and I hold this for most such institutions in Australia, repeal seems the best outlook, not only for the public mind but for its purse as well. The country has been very badly served by its universities for some time and only by allowing fresh institutions to evolve can we even begin to hope for an improvement.

    Incidentally, I wonder if the management of James Cook University is bibliophobic like that of some universities south of the border?

    60

  • #
  • #
    AndyG55

    OT, UAH January 2018.. drop to +.26C

    makes Jan 2018 the 10th warmest January in the UAH data. (out of 40)

    for the tropics, January 2018 is the =20th warmest January

    SH: Jan 2018 is in 17th place

    NH: the Arctic warm from the El Nino is still yet to fully subside. January 2018 is in 5th place.

    91

  • #
    Sceptical lefty

    The trend towards externally ‘controlled’ or ‘directed’ research has been increasingly obvious (at least, in Australia) since the mid-1970s. Of course, there have been instances of academic corruption for pretty much as long as academic institutions have existed.

    People need to be disabused of the notion that Science is somehow incorruptible, a shining beacon of integrity in our otherwise sordid world. Scientists are, unfortunately, real people subject to the same pressures and desires as the rest of us. There are a few scientists whose professional conduct is exemplary, but such individuals are as rare in Science as they are among the rest of humanity — a bit like elite sportsmen.

    The problem here is that getting people to believe something — because, Science! — is a lot simpler and cheaper than tediously arguing a case in public. At root, people prefer not to think, and tend to find gurus and institutions who will present predigested ‘facts’ that can be believed with minimal mental effort. This is a phenomenon in no way restricted to ‘leftists.’

    I’ll also note that Professor is definitely guilty of not acting in a “collegial” manner. “Collegial” means (strongly), ‘barking with the pack’ or (weakly) ‘not barking against the pack.’ The question is, in an academic institution that supposes values intellectual integrity and freedom of expression, how does this constitute misconduct?

    120

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The problem is that science can and does control peoples lives.

      Get it wrong and all of a sudden insurance companies and doctors are messing with peoples lives. The cholesterol nonsense comes to mind.

      Get it wrong at a higher society level, and all of the sudden the UN can tell you to snap to attention and salute when the Sec Gen walks past….. the Climate Lie comes to mind.

      A moment of clarity from the Guardian…..

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

      “As a research scientist, albeit in biophysics rather than medicine, it seems to me that Ioannidis’ claim describes scientific business as usual. That most scientific studies are ultimately wrong is normal for science. There are more theories in the graveyard of science than theories that stand the test of time. Why? Because new data is always emerging and theories have to be adjusted. Theories are only as good as theories are, until new data comes along and ruins them. Theories give a best guess at what is going on based on things we observe (data), but they are not immutable. If you only have a few data points, then your working theory is more likely to turn out to be wrong. This is not news to science, this is science.

      Ioannidis goes on to say: Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.”

      And concern from The Lancet:

      http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31132-1/fulltext

      “Publishers are increasingly in thrall to volume. The more they publish, so they believe, the stronger will be their presence in the market of science. The most dangerous embodiment of this trend is the mega-journal. All major publishers now want their own mega-journal, a place where they can publish hundreds, maybe even thousands, of research papers each month.

      By doing so, they capture market share, and thereby increase their opportunities for the monetisation and control of science. Those motivations apply as much to open access publishers as they do to any other kind of publishing. By targeting quantity over quality, the net is cast wide to catch as much science as possible.

      The notion of a journal understanding and serving a particular specialist community is laid aside. Instead, vast numbers of papers are loaded onto databases where users are left to search their way through science. The publishers and editors of these journals mean well.

      But in trying to be all things to all people, they are becoming ever-more divorced from the communities of scientists they once claimed to serve.”

      80

  • #
    toorightmate

    I have “penned” an email of disgust to JCU at

    engagement@jcu.edu.au

    I suggest we all do whatever to ensure our displeasure is widely known within JCU.

    141

    • #

      A great idea. Please post those letters here. Wear them down with an overwhelming group response. Groupthinkers, especially, find that hard.

      50

      • #
        Peter C

        Well I sent this to the JCU.

        JCU MISTREATS PETER RUDD

        Peter Ridd did not denigrate JCU.
        JCU denigrated JCU and still does.
        This case is building into a scandal. The scandal is not the behaviour of Professor Peter Ridd. It is the behaviour of the James Cook University administration, .which seems to be trying its hardest to suppress an appeal for the restoration of Integrity and Honesty in the way the science and in particular Climate Science is conducted at the JCU.

        I am 100% behind Professor Ridd.

        I hope that the JCU can find a way to back down and save face.

        Thanks to Toorightmate for the quote at the start.

        Will anyone else follow up with more excoriating emails to the JCU? If we were SJWE there would have been 3000 tweets by now.

        40

    • #
      ivan

      great point.

      my draft

      Sir

      I write in response to your vindictive and wholly unjustfied stance towards Dr Ridd .It would seem that your institution no longer adheres to objective scientific method and instead is engaged in “groupthink”.

      I can only hazard a guess as to your motives but wonder whether your funding model is so powerful that it attempts to eliminate dissenting voices even when ,as in Dr Ridd’s case,there is objective verifiable and most importantly ,fasifiable scientific evidence to back his case.

      This travesty of the defined ethos of James Cook University is a sad indictment of your institution and follows on from your scandalous treatment of Dr Bob Carter.

      Does your University value the scientific method at all? Why should youthful enquiring minds ever grace your door again if they are only going to be force fed the prevailing dogma free from objective scientific scrutiny? Such validation is a requirement of Science is it not?

      As a holder of a tertiary degree I would never encourage any student of mine ,indeed I would actively discourage, any student entering your doors lest they suffer a terminal and irreparable loss of scientific method.

      yours

      70

  • #

    James Cook University at Townsville scores an own goal yet again and once more it’s not in the field of academic excellence or useful or original scientific research.

    190

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    Prof Peter Ridd is very brave indeed. Quality assurance, truth and honesty in science as mentioned in the video? It won’t happen, at least not soon enough because it would mean the end of so many scientific careers in a number of fields.

    120

  • #
    Binny

    He needs to be carefull, religions have a long history of being totally vicious in the defence on their dogma.
    When you have God/Gaia on your side anything goes.

    121

    • #
      Extreme Hiatus

      Sure does. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.

      Thought this was an interesting read with relevance to this:

      “This does not mean that SJWs do not appear empathetic. Quite the opposite. Most narcissists and sociopaths are highly adept at hiding their aberrant character flaws behind causes, platitudes and virtue signaling. They have to believe that the things they do and the ideals they seek to enforce are grounded in moral soil, even though the consequences of these ideals are usually destructive. When confronted with reality, that they are the villains rather than the heroes they imagine themselves to be, they can become erratic and violent.

      SJWs have effectively turned sociopathy and narcissism into a civil rights movement.”

      http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3362-a-post-mortem-on-the-corpse-of-social-justice

      131

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I know sociopaths in positions of power, kind of scary when lack of empathy meets the work place…..

        Think of the poor workers under these people as slaves in a roman war galley….

        30

      • #
        Tdef

        Sorry. Accidental red thumb. I need pointier fingers on my mobile.

        50

    • #
      sophocles

      Inquisitions of any sort tend towards significant durability.
      The Spanish Inquisition, founded in 1478, was closed in 1834, a 356yr lifespan.

      It took over 500 years for the Church to apologize to Galileo.

      51

  • #
    Noel Skippen

    JCU has form in this area. The late, great Professor Bob Carter was also hounded out of this university because he published real science disputing the global warming hype.

    130

  • #

    [...] keep your eye on this site Intellectual Takeout for a change of pace from the MSM. Jo Nova on Peter Ridd. Karl Popper on freedom of speech. The Poverty of Historicism section 32. How could we arrest [...]

    20

  • #

    The fund-raising is going well – $43,713 of $95,000 goal in one day.

    40

  • #
    thingadonta

    A couple of points:

    1. Universities have always been largely internally regulated. They are not essentially democratic (regulated by the public). So within such a culture of internal regulation, they tends to over-react when someone goes ‘outside’ the system to make a criticism. The point is, is this actually allowed as part of his employment? A similar case might be ‘contempt of court’, where you can make internal criticisms through proper channels, but there are limits to what you might be able to say or do publically.

    I would argue this is the main problem with universities, as internal regulation has been shown repeatedly through history, to just not work. It doesn’t work in religion, it doesn’t work in government (which is why we invented democracy), it doesn’t work in the financial system, (eg the GFC-when Greenspan essentially let the banks do their own regulation) and it doesn’t work in science either. This repeated failure of internal regulation amongst otherwise strong institutions and otherwise good people surprises a lot of people (as it did with the GFC), but institutions eventually tend to metastasise to look after themselves, rather than the broader public they are supposed to.

    2. Some form of reform is necessary in how universities (and science) operates within broader society, because the flip side of internal regulation is an inability to accept or deal with outside criticism, a tendency to groupthink and conformity, and in the worst cases, corruption.

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      thingadonta:

      Universities started when the “professors” were paid by the students. Poor lecturers lost students and starved. When Richard Owen took over as Hunterian Professor in 1836, one of his recent predecessor had provoked a riot by the students (who depended on the quality of lecturing to pass the examinations). Fortunately Owen proved a brilliant lecturer (even drawing the Prince Consort to his lectures) and lasted 20 years before moving up.
      Robert Grant influenced Darwin as a young student but over 30 years later Darwin (a kind man) was surprised to find he was still alive, so obscure had Grant become in public because of his unpopular lectures. Grant had tenure for life but died very poor.

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Sorry, pressed the wrong button.
        The solution here is for the Federal Govt. to suspend research grants until the questions raised by Professor Ridd are sorted out. Why should taxpayers money go to questionable ends?

        20

  • #
    PeterS

    He hits the nail on the head on the problem with Universities. They don’t teach students how to think, which should be their top priority: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuQrKfJj3hw

    50

  • #
    John Smith

    Universities are burning the furniture.
    It is sad when smart folk aren’t smart enough to notice disappearing furniture.

    30

    • #
      PeterS

      That’s because they are replacing the furniture as quickly as it’s disappearing, thanks to the fees they extract from their students.

      20

  • #
    pat

    good luck Prof Ridd. don’t back down.

    1 Feb: WaPo: White House seeks 72 percent cut to clean energy research, underscoring administration’s preference for fossil fuels
    By Chris Mooney and Steven Mufson
    The Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for deep budget cuts to the Energy Department’s renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, slashing them by 72 percent overall in fiscal 2019, according to draft budget documents obtained by The Washington Post…
    The document underscores the administration’s continued focus on the exploitation of fossil fuel resources — or, as Trump put it in his State of the Union address, “beautiful clean coal” — over newer renewable technologies seen as a central solution to the problem of climate change…
    Spending for the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is set at $2.04 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends Oct. 1. Last year, the administration asked for $636.1 million, a decline of more than two-thirds, although Congress did not implement the request. For 2019, the administration’s draft proposal would lower that request even further, to $575.5 million.

    The document also suggests substantial staff cuts, down from 680 in the enacted 2017 budget to 450 in 2019…
    The budget proposal would also eliminate state energy grants. The budget would ax research in fuel efficient vehicles by 82 percent, bioenergy technologies by 82 percent, advanced manufacturing by 75 percent and solar energy technology by 78 percent…

    The proposal would cut funds for electric car technologies and fuel-efficient vehicles — at $307 million currently the biggest of the program areas — to $56 million in 2019…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-seeks-72-percent-cut-to-clean-energy-research-underscoring-administrations-preference-for-fossil-fuelsv/2018/01/31/c2c69350-05f3-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html

    behind paywall:

    1 Feb: UK Times: Old King Coal is still a merry old soul, despite reports of his demise
    by Robin Pagnamenta
    His obituary has been written many times, so whisper it quietly: King Coal seems to be making a comeback. The polluting black fuel may be about as fashionable as a pair of cargo pants or a holiday on the Costa Brava, but thermal coal prices jumped by 33 per cent in 2017, making it one of the world’s top five high-performing commodities.

    This year, too, coal prices have started with a bang. Australian thermal coal mined from an open-cast pit in central Queensland will fetch about $103 a tonne in Qinhuangdao, China’s biggest import terminal, today. That’s more than double its value two years ago.

    While European governments, including Britain’s, have trumpeted their plans to phase out coal-fired power generation altogether within a decade, demand…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/old-king-coal-is-still-a-merry-old-soul-despite-reports-of-his-demise-x27q08qlw

    30

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    The correct approach of the University would have been to suggest an inter-University discussion. Then fund and advertise a multi-entity/person gathering on a neutral site.

    Is there a neutral site in OZ?
    I would offer my hay shed, but it is a long way from anywhere.
    Too late now, I think, but the offer is open.

    30

    • #
      toorightmate

      John F,
      My preference is to take the relevant folk from JCU behind your hay shed and belt the living sh*t out of them.

      31

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    This is another example of how bucking the entrenched view of things can get you in hot water in the scientific world.

    Putting religious views aside for a moment, I see a startling parallel with this and treatment of climate sceptics….

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01241-9

    “Thousands of scientists in India have signed an online petition protesting against comments by a higher-education minister who last week publicly questioned the scientific validity of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and called for changes in educational curricula.

    The incident continued to simmer when Indian science minister Harsh Vardhan, a medical doctor, declined to comment on his colleague’s remarks at a press conference on 24 January. Vardhan said he had not studied Darwin’s theory since he was a student and so wasn’t qualified to discuss it.

    The original comments were made by Satyapal Singh, a junior minister for human-resource development who oversees university education. On 20 January, he told reporters at a conference on ancient Hindu texts in Aurangabad that Darwin’s theory of evolution of humans “is scientifically wrong”. Singh added that “nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral, have said they saw an ape turning into a man”. Two days later, he proposed holding an international seminar on the subject.

    The comments provoked outrage in the Indian scientific community. Vishwesha Guttal, an evolutionary ecologist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, suggests the remarks are the first time that such anti-evolution opinions have been aired by high-ranking politicians in India. “I have seen these kind of issues (anti-Darwin stance) when I was a student in the US. This was totally unheard of, so far, in India,” says Guttal. “My first thought was, ‘Is this coming to India now?’”

    Senior government officials later dismissed the comments. On 23 January, Singh’s boss Prakash Javadekar, the senior minister for human-resource development, said that he had asked Singh to refrain from making such remarks. “We should not dilute science,” Javadekar said. He added that his ministry would not support any anti-Darwin activities such as Singh’s proposed conference or changing curricula. Singh did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Nature’s news team.”

    50

  • #
    michael hart

    Time and again, there is the same lesson to be learned. Even if you are a tenured academic, make sure you are completely prepared before you publicly express doubts about the global warming agenda. It really is the new religion of our times.

    The opposition will not merely attempt to discredit you. They will aim to destroy you.

    80

  • #
  • #
    pat

    so much money at stake:
    1 Feb: InsideClimateNews: New York’s Giant Pension Fund Doubles Climate-Smart Investment
    The $2 billion boost was announced at the Investors Summit on Climate Risk, where top fund managers discussed finance for a low-carbon, clean energy future.
    By Nicholas Kusnetz
    America’s third-largest public pension fund is ramping up its climate-savvy investments, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced to global finance leaders on Wednesday.

    The fund, a huge and influential investor, plans to double its stake to $4 billion in a portfolio of companies that disclose and seek to lower their emissions of global warming pollution.
    “We’ve particularly been concerned about how we can address the issue of climate risk and benefit our portfolio,” DiNapoli said, speaking at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, where money managers called for investors to face up to the risks of climate change and to accelerate action to fight global warming…

    As the summit was underway at the United Nations on Wednesday, the UK Government’s Met Office published an ominous new five-year forecast (LINK) that adds urgency to the investors’ climate concerns: Annual global temperatures could reach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within the next five years, the Met Office warned. The aim of the Paris climate agreement is to prevent warming from getting much beyond that level…

    Disclosure was a common theme at the summit, which was hosted by the United Nations Foundation, the UN Office for Partnerships and Ceres, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable investment…
    “If you are not a climate-aware investor, then you are fundamentally not doing your job,” said Brian Deese (Obama’s climate adviser), global head of sustainable investing for BlackRock, a leading investment firm…

    Lisa Jackson, who led the EPA under President Obama and now heads environment, policy and social initiatives for Apple, spoke about the role of private money in expanding renewable energy…

    Even as many leaders spoke optimistically about this clean energy transition and the financial sector’s growing role, Sharan Burrow (former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions 2000–2010) general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, called it “a disgrace” that few governments are helping to retrain workers in the fossil fuel industry who stand to lose their jobs.
    “So your work is critical. If we don’t get that right in fossil fuels as the shift is now on,” she said, “then we’re going to leave a lot of stranded workers and communities.”
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022018/new-york-pension-fund-doubles-climate-investment-investors-risk-summit

    31 Jan: Reuters: Huw Jones: EU panel says finance sweeteners for green projects may create bubble
    Cutting capital requirements at banks to encourage more lending to environmentally-friendly projects could create a “green bubble”, a panel convened by the European Union’s executive said on Wednesday.
    The High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance published its final recommendations on creating a financial system that can fund more projects to improve the environment and deliver social benefits over the long term…

    But the expert group struck a cautious note, saying several steps were needed before determining whether capital requirements should be cut to below the level of economic risk of a “green” project.
    “If capital requirements were reduced below that, lending could become concentrated in less prudent lenders,” the expert group’s report said.
    “To avoid any ‘green bubble’ and undercapitalisation coming from market distortions, there should be a cap on lower capital requirements on green assets. That cap could evolve over time.”
    “This report is just the beginning,” European Commission Vice Presidents Valdis Dombrovskis and Jyrki Katainen said in the report’s introduction…

    Markus Ferber, a German center-right member of the European Parliament, said the expert group was plotting a “dangerous shift” by replacing containment of risks in banking with a push for sustainable finance.
    “This will lay the groundwork for the next bubble and the next crisis. This is even more so as the High Level Group fails to clearly define what sustainability in finance actually is,” Ferber said…

    Green funds had around 145 billion euros of assets under management in 2016, against 3.1 trillion invested in European bonds and 3.4 trillion in equity funds, the group said in an earlier report.
    The EU aims to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, for which it estimates about 180 billion euros ($212 billion) in additional low-carbon investments are needed per year…

    ***Brussels plans to introduce a legal obligation for asset managers to consider environmental risks when investing client funds.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-banks-regulations/eu-panel-says-finance-sweeteners-for-green-projects-may-create-bubble-idUSKBN1FK1EZ?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    50

    • #
      pat

      Met Office link in the above. CarbonBrief coverage:

      31 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Warming could breach 1.5C within five years, says UK Met Office
      Background warming and natural cycles could push warming beyond 1.5C, within a decade of nations agreeing to try and keep it below that limit
      By Karl Mathiesen
      The Met Office’s decadal forecast said the global average temperature was “likely” to exceed 1C between 2018-2022 and could reach 1.5C.
      “There is also a small (around 10%) chance that at least one year in the period could exceed 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,” the office said in a statement (LINK) on Wednesday. “It is the first time that such high values have been highlighted within these forecasts.”

      Met Office scientists were quick to point out that this would not actually breach the Paris Agreement, as that limit refers to a long term average, rather than a yearly reading…
      “We should remember that the Paris Agreement is about the global climate reaching this level over a longer-term average, rather than just a temporary excursion,” said Dr Doug Smith from the Met Office Hadley Centre…

      Prof Adam Scaife, head of long range prediction at the Met Office, commented: “The global pattern of heat would be different to a more sustained exceeding of the Paris 1.5C threshold. Early, temporary excursions above this level of warming are likely to coincide with a large El Niño event in the Pacific.”
      http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/31/warming-breach-1-5c-paris-limit-within-five-years-says-uk-met-office/

      10

      • #
        toorightmate

        Dr Smith and Prof Scaife should just venture out of their offices for a short time.
        I’s as cold as charity outside in the UK.

        40

  • #
    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Note to anyone in SA, Victoriastan, California or North Korea…..you should be ok, you have minimal functional infrastructure…..

      50

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘It is believed the magnetic field flip could take place in the next 2000 years.’

      Copy that.

      30

      • #
        Another Ian

        How does that compare to asteroid risk?

        30

        • #
          el gordo

          Asteroid impact is a distinct possibility, whereas pole swapping is unlikely, but digging deeper into the links in that yarn there maybe a climate connection.

          ‘Sampling at Limpopo River Valley locations has yielded the first archaeomagnetic history for southern Africa between A.D. 1000 and 1600. What we found reveals a period in the past, near A.D. 1300, when the field in that area was decreasing as rapidly as it is today. Then the intensity increased, albeit at a much slower rate.

          ‘The occurrence of two intervals of rapid field decay — one 700 years ago and one today — suggests a recurrent phenomenon. Could the reversed flux patch presently under South Africa have happened regularly, further back in time than our records have shown? If so, why would it occur again in this location?’

          41

  • #
    Tdef

    Now $50,000 and Trending. There us a lot of support for someone standing up to blatant intimidation. It also demonstrates how the ‘consensus’ is enforced.

    Prof Ridd is a perceived threat to the Climate gravy train bringing in hundreds of millions just this year. The Climate Change trillions must keep flowing, the Green Industrial complex must be fed. Think of the job losses if the money stopped.

    80

    • #
      Cynic Of Ayr

      Think of the jobs created, if the money wasted on the Gravy Train was spent on something useful!
      There’d be no job losses. Just job shifting. (And I acknowledge the pain to individuals that that can cause.)
      Still, a job based on lies that produces nothing, can’t be sustained forever.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, as I have written so often, imagine if $1,500,000,000,000 a year was spent on fusion research? We would never need coal again, except for steel. Limitless energy. No pollution (CO2 is not pollution). Electric cars. Electric everything. An Eden, even if the terrible ice age returns.

        40

  • #

    Intellectuals are always wrong. This is because you can’t work from the top down, no matter how good your ideas or intentions. Thinkers and leaders have to respond to the currents of a free-moving humanity, not determine the flow. The best ideas have to go through a thorough mangling and proving, something intellectuals hate by instinct.

    Hence the failure of Communism and impending failure of its rebadged rejig, Globalism. Hence the fear of curiosity, contradiction and freedom in our centralised and corporatised academia.

    Intellectuals have to be wrong. Always.

    70

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      I would offer a clarification.

      The reason you can’t work from the top down is because it is an attempt to define reality without reference to reality. The expectation is that either reality will cooperate (it won’t) or you have enough willing victims to pay the costs so you can float above the consequences. It appears to work until you run out of willing victims. Then things get really ugly.

      It is the stuff of the collapse of civilizations.

      20

  • #
    Cynic of Ayr

    Many are saying Peter Ridd is a brave man – and so he is! However, Peter Ridd is also a clever man, an intelligent man, a likable man, and most of all – an honest man of great integrity. Speaking to him for even a short time, reveals all these qualities.
    Donate, by all means, because he is brave, but donate also, to his cause and his integrity.

    110

  • #
    Bert Walker

    Apparently Professor Ridd missed the memo on Postmodern philosophy.
    Specifically the part outlining that there is no such thing as “Objective truth”, nor “Competence” which are only social constructs of the white patriarchy of which he is one and thus must be silenced.
    If Dr. Ridd persists in victimizing the world with his clear truthful statements about his objective findings he must be punished as a threat to humanity.
    (Yes I wrote this in a spirit of ironic sarcasm against postmodernism. Sadly though it is accurate in the philosophy.)

    101

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Post modernism is just an excuse for intellectual cowardice….

      60

    • #

      well done for getting post-modernism confused with something else entirely. From comment 7 above…

      The issues raised here are not new. In fact, the whole notion of ‘objectivity’ has a long history. It is likely that humans cannot ever be objective, no matter how hard they try. We interpret the world through a variety of lenses, not least of which is the sociocultural milieu within which we live–to say little about the numerous psychological processes that impact our belief system and attitude formation. This is as true for scientists who claim to be objective in their research endeavours as it is for journalists who claim to be fighting fake news and only presenting the ‘truth’.

      This is a view that precedes post-modernism by thousands of years and does underlie post-modern thought at all.

      34

      • #
        el gordo

        Post Modernism came to an end before the turn of the century, replaced by ‘globalisation, relational aesthetics and contemporaneity.’

        41

      • #
        Peter C

        well done for getting post-modernism confused with something else entirely.

        What is the “something else entirely ” that Bert has got confused about?

        10

        • #
          Peter C

          This is a view that precedes post-modernism by thousands of years and does underlie post-modern thought at all.

          It seems that Post modernist thought is actually confused thought that has been around in a few minds for a long time.

          Bert has nailed it!

          20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    JCU claimed that Professor Ridd’s comments denigrated the university…

    I wonder whose words — and actions — are what really denigrates JCU.

    Any ideas from anyone out there in climate change land? I dare you to answer me. But you won’t. And you won’t because you can’t.

    I think we skeptics know the answer though, don’t we?

    40

  • #
    Andrew

    I was awarded a Master of Science by JCU in 1985. Now that the Inquisitors at JCU are debasing science what do fellow Novarians suggest I do with the worthless parchment? Send it back; burn it and send the ashes back; make a video of the burning; calculate the amount of CO2 emitted and pay a tax? Ideas please. Of course I will make a donation to Prof Ridd’s case.

    20

  • #

    Re Dr Willie Soon, today I responded to his email and
    received Mail Delivery message, ‘Still undelivered after
    4 hours. Will keep trying until message is 5 days old.’
    Serfs get suss-picious.

    40

    • #

      Message delivered! Think I’ve been responding like a paranoid android.

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I also received email from Willie Soon. He’s been fighting bad science for a long time and I was very happy to be able to put my name behind his effort against the National Museum of Natural History’s “distortion”** of the truth..

      I hope he succeeds but the history of such efforts isn’t all that promising.

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        ** read that as outright lying and you’ll know what’s happening.

        And my own misinformation should get a correction. It’s the American Museum of Natural History.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Well, now that I got started the link is not correct. and I can’t find the correct one. So from Soon’s email to me here is the summary of what it’s all about.

          The American Museum of Natural History has a long and honorable tradition of enlightening the
          world at large with outstanding scientific exhibits and public lectures. However, on January 25th
          ,
          2018, an open letter was submitted to the museum accusing them of being “anti-science” and
          promoting “climate science misinformation”, and in particular, vilifying a scientifically-engaged
          trustee of the museum, Rebekah Mercer.
          The lead signatory on the letter was Dr. James Powell, a geochemist who has written extensively
          about his belief that there is a secretive cabal of vested interests “attacking science” and promoting
          “misinformation” about climate science for sinister reasons, e.g., his 2011 book, “The inquisition of
          climate science”. Powell and many of the other signatories have argued that those who disagree
          with them on any aspect of climate change are “anti-science” and that their opinions should be
          suppressed. Ironically, this idea of suppressing opposing scientific views is the very antithesis of
          scientific inquiry.
          Yet, in this particular case, while the January 25th letter purports to be about an alleged example of
          “anti-science”, the letter’s vilification of the American Museum of Natural History, and of one of its
          trustees seems to be purely ideological. Powell and his co-signatories are complaining about two
          sentences on the label for a particular exhibit on the fourth floor of the museum.
          The exhibit which was installed in 1993 summarised the scientific consensus at the time on “what
          caused the Ice Ages?”:
          “The causes of the Ice Ages are not fully understood, but we know some factors that led to
          the first growth of the polar ice sheets. One was a decline in world temperatures over the
          previous 30 million years. Another was the formation, about 3 million years ago, of the
          Isthmus of Panama, which connected North and South America and diverted the oceans’
          circulation to a more northward pattern. Since the first northern-hemisphere glaciers
          formed, 2.6 million years ago, the polar ice caps have expanded and contracted in response
          to variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, causing cold spells alternating with warmer
          periods, like the one we live in now.
          There is no reason to believe that another Ice Age won’t come. In the past, warm cycles
          lasted about 10,000 years, and it’s been that long since last cool period. Human-made
          pollutants may also have an effect on the Earth’s climatic cycles.”
          On January 6th
          , a visitor to the museum, Dr. Jonah Busch, objected on Twitter to the last paragraph
          and claimed that the museum was “promoting misinformation on climate change”. In particular, he
          objected to the use of the word “may” in the sentence “Human-made pollutants may also have an
          effect on the Earth’s climatic cycles” because the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (2014), concluded
          (predominantly on the basis of computer model studies) that “Greenhouse gases emissions are
          extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century”.
          However, when the exhibit had been installed in 1993, the IPCC was far more equivocal on the
          causes of recent warming, and in their 1st Assessment Report (1990) had concluded, “The size of the
          warming over the last century is broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models, but is
          also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.”
          It is true that, while the label is still correct, the IPCC’s perspective has changed over time. However,
          when the exhibit had been installed in 1993, the label accurately reflected the IPCC’s perspective.
          Moreover, once the museum was alerted to the specific content of the label, they quickly responded
          (January 8th):
          “Based on data, the content is not wrong – but it is showing its age (nearly 25 years). Were it
          written today, it would have different context and emphasis, and more recent scientific
          data, as current exhibitions/more recent halls do. In the more recent Hall of Planet Earth, for
          example, exhibits point to the rise of atmospheric CO2 due to human activities, and to
          evidence for increases in pollutants from human activity recorded in ice core layers.”
          This bears no resemblance to the claims of “anti-science propaganda” or “climate science
          misinformation” which Powell and his co-signatories are accusing the museum of. The exhibit in
          question was just one of many, and although now quite old, accurately reflected the scientific
          opinions at the time it was installed. And, Powell and his co-signatories agree that the museum’s
          response was both prompt and reasonable

          30

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I recall seeing those exhibits you describe when we visited New York in 2009 and can recall screening the exhibit information for climate change induced comments.

          10

  • #
    JB

    I guess this how they achieve scientific consensus. By bullying and threatening any true scientist who practices true science.
    Common thugs the lot of them!!

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    Now at $71,489. Incredible. He is writing to every donor. Some people restore your faith.

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      However when you consider the six years of stalling with Michael Manne and Dr. Tim Bell, you have to wonder if anything will happen, ever. As with Mark Steyn. The process is the punishment. The Canadian Supreme Court have been sitting on a judgement of contempt of court by Manne for nine months. How long does it take to make a simple decision? Justice delayed is justice denied.

      80

    • #
      TdeF

      That applies equally to Jo and David.

      40

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    As at 8:00pm EST today the GoFundMe tital is over $72,000 in just over 24 hours, going for a target of $95,000. He will get here and beyond, I would think, and he will need the extra. It is amazing that so many Australians and others from all over the world have responded so quickly and generously for what is about freedom of speech as much as it is about scientific integrity.

    Go Peter Ridd. He must win this case and the echoes must ring around every university in the western world.

    60

  • #
    Griffo

    More than $80k,from more than 600 donors,not bad going.A lot of people must have donated more than $100,better make a donation to Jo also.

    30

  • #
    RAH

    Anthony Watts has vowed to keep his post on this at the top until the crowd funding goal is reached. Perhaps you could consider doing the same Jo?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/james-cook-university-censures-a-climate-skeptic-help-him-fight-back/

    20

  • #
    Jennifer Marohasy

    So, thank you so much to everyone who has donated. The target has just now been reached. THANK YOU.

    40

    • #
      Annie

      That’s wonderful. I was feeling bad because we couldn’t afford to contribute at present (on pensions now; my husband works part-time without pay) but we’ll buy the book as soon as we can. We have the previous one and a few others by Tim Ball,etc.

      40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Target not receiving any more donations.

    Pinged Unquerty instead.

    20

  • #
    Horace

    I have just enrolled with JCU for a graduate diploma. I have been in two minds about doing it. The “piece of paper” might help with my career but is expensive and it’s content can be learned from cheap easily available resources. This story has convinced me to withdraw and i will cite Peter Ridd’s case when I do.

    70

    • #

      Horace, that is decisive of you, and will have an impact. Thanks for letting us know and good on you for letting JCU know. This must surely be something they will listen too. If lecturers start hearing of students pulling out, with all the funding that each student entails, that news will travel.

      60

    • #
      Ceetee

      Damn good on yer Horace. Huge respect from me.

      10

  • #
    Doc

    ‘Follow the money…..!’.
    Define the pyramid. Universities and researchers simply sit at the apex of the pyramid, and the apex is fed from the funding arising from the bodies composing the bulk of the pyramid below from which arises the cash or coercion. Those
    bodies are the environmental movements, social activists with their own aims,
    and government. Of these the largest and most dangerous is the politicians.
    It is the politicians that seek the votes, that provide the support to the social agendas and declare the supremacy of a line of science, yet mathematics and science are almost non existent in the ken of the Members of Parliament. In so far as some expertise is present such members are shut down (Jenson? and the member that was tossed over citizenship). The CSIRO, once an esteemed body, sacks people for ‘heretical’ but scientifically based opinions. It all comes down to funding as coercion!

    It is the Federal Government – all Parties- that killed alternative, data supported, peer reviewed scientific opinion and declared all such people not
    agreeing with the ‘accepted’ opinion as ‘Sceptics’! When funding depends on the ‘right’ opinion, prohibits scientific argument to the contrary, then we as a society are in the Dark Ages of intolerance, declared ‘truths’ and burning at the stake!

    The politicians are continually placing themselves further and further out on a very thin limb because they cannot accept their own stupidity. They hope the disaster they have instigated on our nation won’t blow until most of them get out of the Parliament and escape retribution! Even as Trump blows apart the ‘concensus’, our politicians go with the EU signing their’s and our
    death warrant on power and economic competition. They are too frightened to
    admit their stupidity as our society is forced to eat dust from abandoned factories, pay scales that haven’t moved for a decade and power blackouts that
    will take lives both human and economic.

    Thank God for Peter Ridd and anyone else like him to whom the truth of science still lies in the facts, is supreme and ignores the practical aspect of personal funding consequences. This bloke is the real deal as a human being, and that shames those and the Universities that destroy the scientific principles simply to satisfy mammon and retain their own jobs. How does a scientist justify being paid when they repudiate the very principles that allow them to call themselves ‘scientists’ in the first place.

    Our governments in particular have brought this down upon the world and only they can change this modus operandi by removing their slurs and providing the means for open scientific research that lets the answers come from that research and not from their own declarations via self interest. Their stupidity is mind blowing, not just in the consequences of what it has done in destroying the power system of much of the country, but also, by introducing hatred between individuals it supports against those it doesn’t, it is destroying our scientific development as well.

    10

  • #
  • #
    Harold poole

    School has a reputation and job of teaching truth and scientific truths based on factual detailed research that entail a detailed study of all the varitables in a scientifically controlled environment with a in-depth analaysis of years of study of thousands of data points carefully collected to arrive at a logical conclusion of the facts and put under scrutiny by other scientific specialist to verify your work. He can publish his own fantasy’s and junk study under his own name. School has every right to refuse to allow his junk to be associated with their name

    [Or School could muster a simple rebuttal. No they want to remove him. The difference will likely be lost to you Harold. ] ED

    00

  • #
    joseph

    I think maybe I need a grant to research how to post a reply!

    [Sorry for the delay. Your comments should go through much faster now. Thanks. Jo]

    50

  • #
    sophocles

    Good luck with that one, Joseph. Ensure your application uses the magic words Climate Change, Global Warming, Disastrous Warming, Sea Level Rise Acceleration, Ocean Acidification etc etc as often as possible and you have a host of computer models (any models will do) to test hypotheses with.

    50