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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Day 2: James Cook Uni checks your emails but not the science

Day 2: Jennifer Marohasy gives us an update on Peter Ridd’s battle for free speech

Today, Judge Vasta asked how it could be that James Cook University – a recipient of so many billions of dollars over the years – could leave no stone unturned in its disciplinary process against Peter Ridd, while doing absolutely nothing to address his complaints about the lack of quality assurance of its research.

Not once in court today, or yesterday, was there any defense by the James Cook University Team of “the science” that Peter Ridd has been so critical of.  The university is simply arguing that he doesn’t have a right to speak-out.

Let’s remember how important “quality control” is to JCU: One researcher at JCU was found guilty of fabricating results by Upsalla University. Peter Ridd reported the same researcher has presented photos of 50 fish that contained manipulated, flipped duplicates. These are serious allegations in science. In response JCU took a whole year to even name the people on the investigation panel, let alone start investigating. As I said at the time:

James Cook has done what any ambitious, money-hungry grant troughing institute would do, a very slow investigation of allegedly corrupt behaviour and a very quick sacking of the honest researcher who threatens to expose them. Any respectable Science Minister would freeze all grants to James Cook until this situation was resolved and reversed.

From Gideon Rozner of the IPA on the proceedings of Day 2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJwu59hK3Sw&feature=youtu.be

The words, “wild”, “bizarre” and “extreme” come to mind:

“Chris Cocklin, dep Vice Chancellor of JCU, tried to suggest that Professor Ridd was not a “distinguished academic” at the university and therefore was not covered by the academic freedom clause.”

– Gideon Rozner

Ridd has worked at JCU for over 30 years.

The Australian, March 27th: I had no choice, why sacked JCU academic Peter Ridd went public

Peter Ridd says he felt he had no choice but to publish information on the GoFundMe page because he was being gagged, had lost all faith in the disciplinary process and needed to raise funds to mount a legal challenge.

He explains why quality assurance is so important:

by Charlie Peel. The Australian

“I [Peter Ridd] was disciplined for saying these institutions were untrustworthy and that was referring to quality assurance in science.”

He argued the studies affected “a lot of people” because it informed public policy on legislation to cut fertiliser use in Great Barrier Reef catchments, shut down dredging and mining operations and was affecting tourism because visitors thought the reef was dying.

“The science needs to be rigorous because it affects a lot of people,” he said.

More from Jen Marohasy:

At one stage, it appeared that James Cook University were going to argue that Peter Ridd was unqualified to have an opinion on biological matters because he is a physicist, but so far, and after two days, James Cook University are not running that argument either.  They are simply claiming that the university’s code of conduct prevents its employees from being un-collegial, and specifically Peter Ridd from being so critical of his colleagues and their research.

Anticipating some attack on Peter Ridd’s credentials, I wrote a blog post explaining how and why a knowledge of physics is so relevant to understanding reef ecosystems:

What would a physicist know?

The arguments will continue in court tomorrow/Thursday, 28thMarch at the Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 119 North Quay, Brisbane CBD from 10am.

The stories of Peter Ridd and JCU:

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (91 votes cast)
Day 2: James Cook Uni checks your emails but not the science, 9.7 out of 10 based on 91 ratings

177 comments to Day 2: James Cook Uni checks your emails but not the science

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Perhaps the tide will start to turn, thanks to brave individuals like Peter Ridd and his supporters- not least being Jen and Jo, the stalwart defenders of the truth, burrs under the saddle cloth of the BOM and CSIRO.

    913

    • #
      toorightmate

      Is today’s red thumb that of JCUs vice chancellor?

      612

      • #
        Dennis

        Something like a vice squad?

        162

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          In many blogs the ID of the red thumbers can be accessed. I wish we could here as well.

          132

          • #
            ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

            Aww.. That could lead to all sorts of mischief. I don’t think it’s important to know who red-thumbers are because we already know what they are – largely unimportant in the grand scheme of the Universe.

            161

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            This is just my opinion and has nothing to with Jo’s official position on the green and red thumbs, a position I don’t even know but what would you do with that information? And it isn’t necessary to log in to read any page on the blog so what identifying data would you suggest be provided about the instigator of a red thumb?

            Personally I think they’re a distraction and would get rid of them. If someone likes or doesn’t like what you say the means is there for them to speak up. Anonymous disapproval is worthless and cowardly too.

            As evidence that they are a distraction, here we are spending time discussing them. No one likes to get them, including me. But what actual good are they?

            112

            • #
              Peter C

              Red Thumbs!

              But what actual good are they?

              A few Red thumbs come for some unknown trolls.

              A lot of red thumbs mean that that a lot of regular readers disagree with your comments.

              I have been the recipient of both types.

              I decided some time ago that I would never deliberately give a red thumb. Either ignore the comment or respond.

              However I would rather get a Red thumb than No thumb. At least someone read my comment, and considered it sufficiently to make a response.

              Green thumbs by contrast are a useful shorthand, instead of filling up the blog with lots of agreement but no actual contribution.

              On balance I think Jo should keep Green and Red thumbs. Just don’t upset by the recept of red thumbs.

              101

            • #
              The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

              Trust me, Roy, I have a lot of respect for your views (I green you every chance I get; and I would red you if I disagreed w/ your comment, or your comment was off-base), but here I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you.

              In some cases, the local vernacular or dialect of Australia would cause me to mis-understand a comment by the ‘locals’, so seeing a lot of reds or greens often helps me to discern what the author meant or implied. Search engines assist in deciphering the local dialect (in many cases; sometimes jargon is so off-beat, event the search engine comes up empty, in which case some other regular visitors from our side of the Big Pond make inquiry on our behalf).

              But, the main story of our reds and greens is this: if some “drive-by” troll is willing to make a red on a comment, but never jump into the discussion to express an opinion (or, alternatively, provide some reliable data or discussion for their ‘red’), it says a lot more about them than it does the character of the person making the post. I think it’s a really great thing they have the guts to anonymously red a comment, but never stop in long enough to explain their thoughts. Obviously, they are incapable of generating cogent thoughts on a matter, and can only “vent” through the thumb. As Peter so eloquently states, a green gives you the opportunity to express appreciation for the post, without having to sign-in to ‘agree’.

              And, BTW, I greened you here, even though I disagree with your post; I know your post was thoughtful, and while it “hijacked” the thread for a bit, we’re mostly back on topic.

              My Best Regards to all,

              Vlad

              51

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I don’t think it was my comment that hijacked the thread. I just did what I advocated and jumped in to say I disagree and here’s why. And I’ll admit that it’s a nice stroke to my ego if the green ones pile up. But in the end, so what? I’m still going to say what I wanted to say no mater if someone agrees or disagrees.

                By he way, it’s not lost on me that these little red and green thumbs are part of the culture of Jo Nova. And I’ve been known to use that fact myself. But years ago thee were — what would you call them — flame wars were someone was beaten up with red thumbs and it wasn’t productive. These da trolls seem to stay away

                30

      • #
        jack

        Again a relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson.
        An institute verses the truth.

        It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

        and these days, maybe a little help from the courts!

        281

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its already well under way.

      Universities seem to have become no better than a bunch of poorly disciplined and badly behaved snarky teenagers, ganging up on and excluding kids they dont like at a party….

      This is another fine example of how Soicilaism degrades a society.

      The more examples of Socialism we can expose and rout, the better over all society will be.

      Bad stuff festers & grows in the dark…..

      251

      • #
        Geoff

        http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst10.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/EB8F13501574660ECA2581C60009E563/$FILE/17-5aa001%20authorised.pdf

        Ridd may win but the State of Victoria is doomed.

        2017 EPA Act

        1 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Climate Change Act 2010—

        (a) to set a long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; and

        (b) to provide for the setting of 5-yearly interim greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in order to reach the long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; and

        (c) to facilitate the consideration of climate change issues in specified areas of decision making of the Government of Victoria; and

        (d) to set policy objectives and guiding principles to inform decision-making under this Act and the development of government policy in the State; and

        (e) to provide for a strategic response to climate change through a climate change strategy, adaptation action plans and emissions reduction pledges; and

        (f) to provide for greater clarity and accountability through information collection and reporting; and

        (g) to facilitate the State’s contribution to national and international carbon sequestration efforts; and

        (h) to provide for the creation of forestry rights, carbon sequestration rights and soil carbon rights; and

        (i) to provide for Forestry and Carbon Management Agreements in relation to private land and Carbon Sequestration Agreements in relation to Crown land; and

        (j) to implement changes arising from a statutory review of the Climate Change Act 2010; and

        (k) to make a consequential amendment to the Environment Protection Act 1970.

        101

        • #
          ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

          I’d already warned my sister in Victoriastan some months ago about local councils creating legislation (which they lawfully can’t – failed referendum 3 times) requiring homeowners to provide energy/greenhouse gas reporting and compliance to council. It’s just another money grafting scheme. If you don’t comply, you’ll be “fined” (only courts of Competent Jurisdiction as per Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution can “fine” anyone – and there ain’t any left in this country) and if you can’t pay they’ll apply certain methods/penalties or your “property” may be auctioned to cover costs.

          It seems to be a part of the UN takeover plan. Check here for what Kim Beazley said in 1990:

          https://larryhannigan.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/beasley.jpg?

          How does almost every Aussie NOT know of this?

          172

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            It is indeed all about power and of course the money you can get if you have enough power.

            Politics, even in the university system is always about only one thing, power.

            91

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              The UN wants total power. Hasn’t that been obvious for as long as there has been a UN? And foolish us, we give it to them.

              101

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Roy, IMHO we are entering a new Dark Ages.

                The Elite have worked out they cant stop the flow of information, so mow they use intimidation, sacking and discrediting to silence those who speak the truth…..

                By way if another exampke, the NZ govt were trying feverishly to stop copies of the luve stream if the mosque shooting from being out in the publus arena.
                Why? What wrere they scared of?
                Decent people wont look at it regardless, so why threaten jail time?

                92

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                NZ is a place with a sizable tourism economy. I can only guess that they fear a negative impact on tourism if the video gets out.

                And maybe it’s something else that I don’t see. If I ran across the video by chance I would probably take a look. But I wouldn’t be among those who go looking for it. So maybe I don’t have one of the factors they might fear, political unrest…a lot of possibilities.

                Or maybe I do see it. Suppose someone could use it to whip up hatred against his favorite bogyman? Could be ugly.

                Remember that when you try to hide something those who know your’re hiding it are all the more motivated to discover it.

                The Internet is sure a complicating factor, even with all its benefits.

                30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Ken. Just the man!

      I glanced at a bit of your commentary on ACORN-SAT2, and couldn’t remember the title of the earlier homogenisation that preceded ACORN-SAT now 1.

      As I remember, that homogenisation was demonstrated by your work to be quite absurd. So much so that it indicated that 1. the methodology was hopelessly unsound, 2. the people who produced that work were not competent to do it properly, and 3. They hadn’t even checked their work.

      That should have taken the BOM right out of the argument, thoroughly discredited. It should be put back in the public view.

      201

  • #

    It still amazes how easily people (universities, scientists etc) will sell their souls for money.

    532

    • #
      toorightmate

      Not too many of these people have souls to sell.

      392

    • #
      PeterS

      They see money as more important than searching for the truth so it doesn’t bother them to lie and cheat.

      381

    • #
      Interested

      PeterS: “They see money as more important than searching for the truth so it doesn’t bother them to lie and cheat.”

      Can it really be all about money and that’s all? Or do most of the upper echelons at JCU truly believe that ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is actually an existential threat to the world?

      As I’ve mentioned in previous comments here, I believe CAGW is just a tool being used very effectively as part of a much bigger globalist plan. I’m very much afraid that the plan involves a centralised global government with unlimited powers to control every aspect of our lives – i.e. it will mean the end of the democracy and individual liberty we’ve enjoyed for a century or more.

      For that to be true, it would take a top-down covert operation over many decades. (See articles on what’s called “the long march through the institutions”.)
      It would involve an in-the-know covert hierarchy of ‘puppeteers’ pulling the strings.
      But the vast majority of climate alarmists and ecological activists are clearly just simple souls who accept everything they’re told and thus end up doing the dirty work of the globalists because they think the planet is dying. They’re absolutely sincere but obviously don’t understand that they’re unwitting foot soldiers in a war which will ultimately claim their own freedom as a casualty.

      But here’s the rub: Where’s the horizontal dividing line between the puppet masters at the top and the useful idiots below?
      The academic staff at JCU must surely have the intellect to see through the paper-thin case for CAGW. At least SOME of them must SURELY know that climate alarmism has no plausible basis in science!
      So how many of them are, in spite of their supposed intelligence, really just more of the useful idiots in all of this, and how many of them DO realise that they’ve sold out to a scam of enormous proportions?

      Or are these questions entirely meaningless because they stem from some form of sub-clinical paranoia on my part?!!
      I feel like I’m being logical. But maybe the world is actually OK and it’s me who’s crazy(?).

      301

      • #
        Analitik

        So how many of them are, in spite of their supposed intelligence, really just more of the useful idiots in all of this, and how many of them DO realise that they’ve sold out to a scam of enormous proportions?

        I don’t think it matters to the upper academic staff at JCU if they are aware that they have sold out to the CAGW scam (and I am sure that most of those who are mathematically literate are, indeed, aware of that it is a load of BS). I think they feel secure in the knowledge (assumption?) that the upper echelon globalists “have their back” from any proper scrutiny against the dodgy “research” they perform in exchange for the continual funding from the scare mongering that their “findings” generate.

        They’re supping with the devil and believe their globalist spoon is long enough.

        201

      • #
        PeterS

        No it’s not just about money; it’s one of a number of factors including those you outlined. Whichever way one wants to look at it the simple fact is there is a large group of academics who want to enforce their ideologies onto the rest of us by way of science because it makes them feel good to speak authoritatively and command respect from their peers. They can’t use real science so they resort to fake science, which means fake interpretations of the evidence and fake evidence at times as a last resort. As for the globalist agenda, there is a separate group who want to control the world driven by their greed for power as well as money. They don’t care for respect from their peers and if they had their way each one would like to get rid of the others and be the last man standing taking over the world in place of God. The two groups are using each other at the moment because it’s a happy collusion but eventually the latter group will et to the next level and get rid of the former as they will no longer be useful, and in fact will get in the way of the globalist preventing them to try and reach their ultimate end game.

        141

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          PeterS.

          Do you recall that in December 1986 the Hawke government appointed a partisan board to the CSIRO, with Neville Wran as chairman? The left wing politicians hijacked the science.

          111

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes I recall that. I was there at the CSIRO and had a visit from Barry Jones when he was the science minister. Useless as you know what. He had a photographic memory but the critical thinking skills of a rock.

            81

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              A great description Peter, and when I put that with the memories of his explosive gesticulating manner from T.V. the picture is complete.

              He was a “character” but apparently not the sort to be put in charge of a once formerly great organisation like CSIRO.

              KK

              11

          • #
            PeterS

            Also that’s the main reason why I left CSIRO several years later. It became too political.

            61

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Your sub-clinical paranoia is on the mark.

        41

      • #

        Can it really be all about money and that’s all?

        In a past life I’ve had a working relationship with a number of such establishments and money is a huge driving factor for all of them. Ideology is certainly a part of it, but money drives everything.

        111

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I can’t say what all the factors are that drive people but it’s very hard to ignore the fact that those with power live quite high on the hog — big houses in exclusive districts, expensive cars to name just two things. And they protect what they have as ruthlessly as they can.

          I’d say the money is important.

          111

          • #

            I think the other factor to consider is prestige and power, these people certainly live for the former and often for the latter. Without money flowing into pet projects, they will never attain or maintain the prestige that they desire.

            71

      • #
        RickWill

        Academia is a pursuit most detached from the workforce required to sustain and enrich life. Academics have proven their ability to regurgitate what they have been taught or read. Few are innovators or independent thinkers. The herd mentality is alive and well in universities. They do what is needed in their environment to make a living.

        Many career scientists have invested most of their working life validating Global Warming/ Climate Change. They are not going to just admit that their life’s work has been based on nonsense.

        As far as Climate Science is concerned, one misunderstanding that is widely held is the idea of back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. It cannot happen in the universe. It is anti-science and yet we have the staff at Mauna Loa observatory pointing a calibrated thermopile at the heavens each night and recording the non-sensical W/sq.m that it shows on its calibration.

        Such primitive understandings of EMR are as silly as doctors a century ago prescribing mercury to correct all many of ailments. Ultimately it worked because the patient died of mercury poisoning.

        91

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Wow.
          Look what “Interested” has precipitated.
          A series of great posts that sum up a lot of what’s driving things.

          And Rick, a great summary of the “back radiation” nonsense.
          A bunch of photons out for a stroll in the atmosphere and “lurking under a cloud” are essentially homeless and have only one pathway in life: Down the temperature gradient.
          To put it simply, they “see” the Earth as being a few degrees warmer and can’t go back. The only option is ultimately “deep space” with a huge draw potential of Minus 272 degrees C. That’s a bit over 1C° above absolute zero.

          Contrary to Global Warming Mythology the biggest problem we have here on Earth is that we need to hold onto as much of the Sun’s daily energy ration as possible.

          The idea that humanity has reached the apex of intellectual development is easily disproved by a dispassionate look at the Global Warming Monster.

          KK

          10

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Good analysis.

        The point of divide is hard to pick but it’s probably related to a financial reward level.

        MalEx444 is definitely above the divide line between active “believers” and the more passive ones.

        KK

        31

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          I wonder if MalEx444 has any acquaintances at University Vice Chancellor level who needed a job after losing traction in the USA?

          Likewise what about our national electricity market fiddling system.

          Maybe not above board, but certainly above that line.

          41

    • #
      Phoenix 44

      It’s not money, more the overwhelming desire to have people do as you think they should do.

      51

    • #
      Independent_George

      It isn’t so much they’re selling their souls, but rather, concern for how they appear. Their virtue signalling. It is symbolic of the modern era in general.

      21

  • #
    Robber

    From The Australian: “On the second day of an unfair dismissal hearing in Brisbane yesterday, Federal Circuit Court judge Salvatore Vasta said ­Professor Ridd, who worked at JCU for 30 years, was driven to speak out about his plight out of “frustration”.
    Judge Vasta said that rather than engaging in “robust debate” following Professor Ridd’s accusations, the university and its staff tried to silence him.”

    502

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Yairs. I wonder is that exactly what the judge said?

      22

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Ted O’Brien says:

        Yairs. I wonder is that exactly what the judge said?

        The following is a direct quote from page 8 of today’s “The Australian”:

        Judge Vasta said that rather than engaging in “robust debate” following Professor Ridd’s accusations, the university and its staff tried to silence him.

        Instead of saying, “here, he wants to have the debate, let’s debate it”, he’s forced into defending his name” Judge Vasta said.

        So yes, Robber is correct.

        141

  • #
    TdeF

    The questions are whether the University has the right to fire him and the grounds to justify that and whether the rules to which he is bound are in fact fair and legal.

    However if all this is true, the photos raise a very different point. If the university has the right to fire people for behaving in such a way as to harm the professional reputation of the university and his colleagues, the reverse is also true.

    If the photos show his colleagues were ly*ng and the university was complicit in those lies and Ridd was fired with malice in a conspiracy to cover this up, Ridd has the same rights and it is Ridd who should stay and they who should go.

    Otherwise what has happened is that the Vice Chancellor has acted to cover up a professional fr*ud, in fact a pattern of behavior which in time might and should drag down the reputations of all involved, including the university.

    So under those provisions of mutual professional obligation, if they are in fact legal, reasonable and binding, the wrong man has been fired. Plus the Vice Chancellor is fully aware of the deceit is herself damaging the long term reputation of the university and the reputation for science, truth and professional objectivity. She also is bound by this agreement. A ruling in favor of Ridd may and should mean the end of a few professional careers and a subsantial blow for truth in science.

    After all, they are all privileged public servants who above all are supposed to be telling the truth. That is the understanding with their employer, us. If Ridd is judged to be the only one doing so, the moral whistleblower protecting our interests, he is the one who should stay. They need to go. Especially whoever decided it was simpler to fire the whistleblower whom they thought, correctly was financially defenceless.

    The response of this obvious injustice showed that in public opinion, the contract with their employer was broken. Not only should Ridd be reinstated, those responsible for his firing should be retrenched using the same agreement. Professional reputation is essential. Fr*ud at should not be tolerated.

    671

    • #
      Rupert Ashford

      Whistle blowers unfortunately nearly always pay a terrible price. They always need to leave in the end.

      131

    • #

      TdeF you are right. In Queensland there is in fact a legal obligation for officers in Universities to due the right thing. There is a Public Sector Ethics Act which applies to all Universities (actually stated in the Act). The JCU Vice-Chancellor and other administrative staff including those on the Board or senate (however it is called) should be charged with a breach of the Act and the case referred to QCAT. QCAT can fine them and order that they be dismissed from the public sector. It can also refer them to the police for criminal investigation (fraud, bullying etc) The Public Sector Ethics Act requires officers to be “apolitical” in providing their services as a public officer. The Act also applies to contractors to the public sector. The Act also applies (mentioned in in regulations) to legal aid but this seems to have been ignored with legal aid supporting Greens supporters. Lawyers in Qld. do not seem very competent in knowing the law and how they set out defense and prosecution.

      161

      • #
        NB

        These comments lead me to the question, why on earth did JCU allow it to get this far? Are they so blind as not to see the consequences? There are many questions of competence that arise from this case, including the fact it has been taken to court.
        In addition to completely trashing JCU’s reputation, this case substantially increases the reputational damage the university sector as a whole has been inflicting upon itself for the last decade or more.
        Competence and knowledge are no longer key performance indicators at universities? Conformity to politicised verities is the main driver? Leftism (most of these issues derive from left agendas) is like a virus that kills sectors of the body politic. We need education and research though, so new ways of achieving them will be found.
        Interesting that this crisis in our institutions is happening at just the time when, with the internet, new forms of organisation are being created – inexpensive online education being a case in point. We now have both a push factor and a pull factor for the destruction of the education aspect of universities. As for research, the humanities are dying. Science will remain viable so long as it can avoid the virus. In the meantime, however, I expect a gradual migration into the private sector.

        21

      • #
  • #
    Sean

    For years, American universities have seen the faculty to administrator ratio decline while the cadre of low paid adjunct professors has exploded. In some schools, half the undergraduate instructors are adjuncts who are part time contractors, generally get paid about $3-5K per semester per class taught and often have to divide their time between two or three schools to avoid becoming full time at any one school which would trigger benefits. Meanwhile, the number of “deputy vice chancellors” explode supported by the cut the school gets on research contracts. I suspect being “collegial” means doing nothing that might sully the credentials of any grant receiving faculty member as this would threaten the gravy train that supports administrative bloat.

    401

  • #
    glen Michel

    University of Uppsala,I believe -not Upsalla.

    31

  • #
    Latus Dextro

    The ventilation of argument by JCU seems a précis parody of their administrative polemic. It has no standing, intellectual or scientific validity, nor as importantly, has it honour, dignity, truth, righteousness or justice about it.
    The JCU administration appears to be so far gone down their black hole of mendacious mediocrity that they are institutionally incapable of insight on the one hand, and on the other, of course it is verboten.

    It remains the predictable fate of all those tertiary institutions following the same ideological trajectory.

    I wonder whether they’re watching?

    221

    • #
      dinn, rob

      yes, Latus–” a false foundation will serve only a false structure. We do not approve of the slightest manifestation of hypocrisy, and believe that this vice begets all other corrupt feelings.” -Morya
      So many fields have been subverted.

      81

  • #
    TdeF

    News on Breitbart. Duke University to pay $112.5Million for falsifying research and claim grant money.

    Sound familiar? Couldn’t happen here?

    Who gets Lucy Turnbull’s $444Million to ‘save’ the Great Barrier Reef?

    191

    • #
      TdeF

      This was money awarded without an application, let alone justification except for the research at places including JCU.

      161

      • #
        TdeF

        ‘Duke University President Vincent Price released a statement in which he said that the university accepts responsibility for the dishonesty of the researchers. He said that Duke University should adhere to the highest forms of academic integrity.

        “We expect Duke researchers to adhere always to the highest standards of integrity, and virtually all of them do that with great dedication,” Price wrote in the statement. “When individuals fail to uphold those standards, and those who are aware of possible wrongdoing fail to report it, as happened in this case, we must accept responsibility, acknowledge that our processes for identifying and preventing misconduct did not work, and take steps to improve.”’

        111

        • #
          TdeF

          Note also that the statement clearly says it is the responsiblity of individuals to report possible wrongdoing. At JCU, they are fired.

          171

        • #

          TdeF and everyone, integrity is a requirement of the Qld Public Sector Ethics Act and I would hope that is brought up by lawyers in Peter Ridd’s case.

          111

        • #
          R2Dtoo

          What does the Duke University situation say about the research system? Where were the senior scholars who hire all the postgrads etc.? Where were the peer review colleagues ? Where were the journal editors?

          11

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Sobering reading. Aims of the USA communist Party – scorecard of succeess.

    Australia is more socialist than America, and because we are politically ignorant of Socialism and believe it cant happen to us ( oh boy….palm to forehad…) , and Australians are also addicted to govt handouts.

    But read on.,…

    https://drrichswier.com/2018/07/12/scorecard-of-the-45-goals-in-the-naked-communist-to-turn-america-into-socialist-state/


    17. Get control of the schools ( Universities! ). Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    172

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…and because we are politically ignorant of Socialism …’

      Not me, Australia has a long history of socialism and most of that influence came from American writers.

      31

    • #
      el gordo

      Such as Edward Bellamy, before Marxism there was Utopianism.

      ‘Edward Bellamy (March 26, 1850 – May 22, 1898) was an American author and socialist, most famous for his utopian novel, Looking Backward, a tale set in the distant future of the year 2000. Bellamy’s vision of a harmonious future world inspired the formation of at least 165 “Nationalist Clubs” dedicated to the propagation of Bellamy’s political ideas and working to make them a practical reality.’ wiki

      41

      • #
        el gordo

        I beg the mods forgiveness for being O/T.

        ‘Looking Backward was the third largest bestseller of its time, after Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. It influenced a large number of intellectuals, and appears by title in many socialist writings of the day. It is one of the few books ever published that created almost immediately on its appearance a political mass movement.’ wiki

        41

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      There seems just a smidgin of watermelon fruit salad evident between Australian parliamentarians, government, universities, politics and ideology …

      Julia Gillard takes up honorary post at the University of Adelaide
      Bebbington said University of Adelaide politics students had benefited from the contributions of an array of political figures, including the former Liberal foreign minister Alexander Downer, the former leader of the Australian Democrats Natasha Stott Despoja and Professor John Bannon, the South Australian premier from 1979 to 1992.

      Alexander Downer and the Clinton Foundation – like the deadly Curate’s Egg
      There is no statement of project goal or purpose, thus no indicators at that level, no clear Program Area objectives (with indicators) and no targets.

      Julia Gillard honoured at UniSA
      Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and a career champion for education indoctrination and equity identity politics, Julia Gillard will receive an Honorary Doctorate from the University of South Australia on October 12,…

      Gillard gave $10 – $12M to the Clintons
      Evidence has been unearthed showing that in late 2011 Julia Gillard used borrowed taxpayer funds of between $10 and $25 million to give to the infamous Clinton Foundation. The money was funnelled through the tax-free charity AusAID which was suspiciously brought under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

      Cheque Mates: Gillard, Bishop & Hillary
      The latest give-away was $140 million, announced by Abbott’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in June, 2014. The $140 million pledge went to an amorphous, scandal-plagued US-based education and gender-parity charity chaired since February, 2104, by none other than our ex-PM Julia Gillard,[1] concurrently a prominent member of Hillary Clinton’s official Presidential campaign. The charity is called Global Partnership for Education (GPE).

      University of Adelaide $100M grant from “Professor” Gillard – 12 days before she lost Prime Ministership
      The two new buildings will be built next to the $200 million SA Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) which is now under construction, on land donated by the State Government.

      141

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      And here was I blaming the Poms and their OxBridge.

      Pommie Commies I call them.

      A brilliant son of friends graduated recently with a PhD from Cambridge, a useful PhD I think.

      I asked friend: “What’s Son up to?”

      Friend replied: “He seems to be very worried about plastics in the ocean”.

      61

  • #
    Ian Lea

    embarrassed to have been a science graduate from JCU. It was 40 years ago.

    101

    • #
      TdeF

      Science did not make people rich then. It was a huge sacrifice to be a scientist, not a path to riches.

      Also ecology was in its infancy, not the stuff of politics but a real concern for the environment. The idea that people are the problem has come from the socialist forum which uses ecology as a fund raiser. Greenpeace is a big business which has nothing to do with peace or ecology and everything to do with raising money for the cause and the operators. Like so many charities and religions.

      81

      • #
        TdeF

        And what better place to study nature than in Paradise, scubadiving on the Great Barrier Reef, dining on crab and lobster and reef fish and complaining about how the place is being spoiled by tourists and development? On wages. Of course the Great Barrier Reef is in a terrible way and needs billions to save it. Too bad about the Murray Darling basin then.

        101

  • #
    pat

    around 1 in 10 Aussie voters choose Greens???

    Fossil fuel ban in Greens manifesto
    Daily Telegraph-11 hours ago
    The party will today release a radical manifesto laying out their agenda to abolish the coal industry, which is the lifeblood of the NSW economy…The plan would foist a $65 billion carbon tax…

    28 Mar: RenewEconomy: Greens aim to end coal, and petrol cars, by 2030 in rush to 100% renewables
    by Giles Parkinson
    The Greens on Thursday launched their climate and energy plan – Renew Australia 2030 – calling for rapid shift to 100 per cent renewable energy, the closure of all coal generators, the ending of thermal coal exports, and the banning of new petrol and diesel cars by that date.

    The policy includes significant support for household and business solar and battery storage, a $1 billion transition plan for coal workers, and the creation of a renewable hydrogen export industry to substitute for the death of the export thermal coal industry.
    “Coal is the world’s biggest cause of climate change – and Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Unless we phase out coal, we can’t deal with climate change,” Greens leader Richard Di Natale said.
    “Unlike the major parties, the Greens have a plan to phase out coal exports and create a jobs boom in the renewable energy export industry. Our Renew Australia 2030 action plan will lower energy costs for households and businesses and drive fossil fuels out of the economy.”

    Predictably, the policy was quickly branded as a dangerous and “radical” manifesto by the Murdoch media and Coalition MPs, but the transition plan – while extremely ambitious – is not as radical as many may suggest.
    Firstly, it recognises that strong action needs to be taken if the world is going to accept the science of climate change and be serious about trying to mitigate…
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/greens-aim-to-end-coal-and-petrol-cars-by-2030-in-rush-to-100-renewables-79995/

    31

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      Di Natale’s Green doomsday manifesto would be more convincing if Di Natale gave up fossil fuels immediately.

      121

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        I noticed that the Renew Economy rag has the title “Fair Dinkum” on it’s Title page.

        What ?

        “Fair Dinkum Bullsh*it ” only ….

        22

    • #
      Interested

      Thanks ‘pat’, for the heads-up on this fascinating Greens scheme.

      Excerpt from the Greens manifesto: “… and the creation of a renewable hydrogen export industry .. “

      As a background to this reply, I’m willing to bet many climate activists don’t actually know what CO2 is.
      Despite what they think:-
      It’s not a black sooty pollutant.
      It’s not poisonous – except in large quantities in a confined space. (But large quantities of water in a confined space will kill you too. Think ‘Titanic 1912′.)
      You can’t see it.
      You can’t smell it.
      It’s not dangerous to the planet. It’s beneficial. In fact it’s absolutely vital.
      In summary then: It’s the diametric opposite of everything they’ve been told and everything they believe.

      And I’m willing to bet most of the same climate activists are equally ignorant when it comes to H2.
      Hydrogen is a highly reactive gas (which is why it burns so easily in oxygen).
      But there’s one teensy-weensie little problem, which is often overlooked … there is no uncombined hydrogen on Earth.
      So you can’t distill it from liquified air or mine it from underground.
      It’s all bound up in chemical compounds such as water (H2O) and methane (CH4) and countless other molecules.

      If you want hydrogen on its own, as a fuel, you first have to wrest it from the grasp of the other atoms in these compounds.
      This ‘splitting’ of compounds to obtain hydrogen takes A LOT of energy, so you’re going to have to build a lot more wind farms, solar farms, nuclear reactors, or fossil-fuel power stations to provide that energy.
      And that too costs energy … and resources

      And then, according to the Greens, they’re going to transport this hard-won hydrogen overseas.
      Will they use undersea pipelines? Not really practical.
      What about flying it abroad? Nope. Greens disapprove of planes (except for their own personal use, of course.). And it would take far too many flights to deliver the billions of cubic metres of hydrogen in any case.
      So it’s all down to ships then, is it? Yep.

      But did the Greens realise that to squeeze as much hydrogen gas as possible into each tanker, you have to liquify it?
      That will mean large gas-liquefaction facilities working day and night at our ports.
      That too takes a lot of energy, so you’ll need to build more wind farms, solar farms, nuclear reactors, or fossil-fuel power stations to provide that energy.
      And that in turn will require more energy … and yet more resources.

      But do we have enough liquified-gas supertankers? Or will we need to build more of them, at a cost of more energy and resources?
      Oh, and another thing. Hydrogen doesn’t have enough energy density to power a 500,000 tonne tanker thousands of kilometres across the globe. And batteries won’t cut it either.
      Looks like we’ll be needing huge quantities of fossil fuels or possibly nuclear reactors for the ships’ engines. Is that what they have in mind … or haven’t they thought that far ahead yet?

      And just one more little practical detail. Do we know whether anyone outside of Australia would actually want to buy our expensive hydrogen, when they can most likely get much cheaper coal and gas and oil from somewhere closer to home?

      Hmmm.
      Maybe the Greens will have to re-think their lovely fairy-tale. And perhaps if a few of them learned some basic physics and chemistry, it might help(?).

      152

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        Interested you did a great comment there.But forgot one extremely important aspect of hudrogen..

        Just how bloody dangerous it is..

        The Greens do not know any history.

        Google “The Hindenberg”

        A very big German super blimp in the 1930′s..

        It used hydrogen to get up in the air.

        It blew up and was utterly destroyed while ‘landing’
        Near New York in the USA

        End of the Hydrogen super blimp industry.

        92

      • #
        Maptram

        The Greens want to keep our coal in the ground. If anyone bigger and stronger than Australia wants our coal instead of our expensive hydrogen, they can just come and take it. Do the Greens have a policy to defend our resources?

        42

      • #

        Great comment, Interested.

        Somewhere in the dim past I seem to remember that there was a problem with containing hydrogen due to its small molecular size. Valves, seals and seams have to have very high specifications to be fit for purpose.

        Have I got that right?

        11

        • #
          Interested

          That’s true, FijiDave.
          Ordinary latex balloons will hold air for maybe a week or more but helium-filled ones deflate in a day or so.
          This is due to very small He atoms finding itheir way out through the tiny pores in the latex more easily than the larger oxygen and nitrogen molecules (O2 and N2) which comprise most of our atmosphere.
          And, of course, as you pointed out, hydrogen molecules are even smaller than helium atoms. They escape very easily from containment systems.
          Very high specification joints and seals are needed to prevent substantial losses during storage and transportation.
          This adds greatly to the expense of infrastructure associated with a hydrogen economy. And despite our best efforts, we’re bound to get significant wastage in handling such a volatile material.

          And thanks to Bill in Oz too for picking up on my omission of that vital safety factor.
          Yes.
          Hydrogen combines EXPLOSIVELY with oxygen in the air! A very important point.

          20

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      The Greens are a major DANGER to Australia & the Australian way of life.

      That makes them UN Australian.

      And they should be treated as such.

      They will, if they get their way, plunge Australia into poverty

      And probably a civil war as those who refuse to be impoverished take active measures

      To undermine and destroy the Greenist program

      93

  • #
    Maptram

    The costs to be paid for from new taxes like death taxes, which is included in their policies but not in their election policies, something they will talk about after the election

    51

  • #
    John Watt

    Would be good if the Ridd judge counteracts the recent unsolicited “pro-AGW” comments by a judge dealing with a Qld mining application.

    71

    • #
      Gee aye

      is that how the judicial system works in QLD? Please leave it there.

      55

      • #
        AndyG55

        I agree with geegee, the unsolicited pro-AGW comments should never have been entered into the judgement…

        They should be withdrawn, or countered.

        Pro, or anti-AGW statements can now be part of any judgement.

        It was a very DUMB thing for the “mining application” judge to do.

        33

  • #
    pat

    just did a check. such an important case yet -

    CANNOT FIND A SINGLE GOOGLE RESULT ON THE PETER RIDD CASE BY ABC, SBS, SMH, AGE, GUARDIAN, AFR, 9NEWS, CH7, CH10, SKY…ETC ETC ETC.

    230

    • #
      Gee aye

      Pat, I assume you mean no recent reports?

      out of interest, how many unfair dismissal cases are being reported right now on any media outlet?

      411

      • #
        AndyG55

        Comprehension issues again, Geegee?

        SUCH an important case.. DOH !!!!!

        93

      • #
        pat

        sorry, of course I mean about the court case this week.

        how the FakeNewsMSM silences anyone who doesn’t follow their agenda:

        listen carefully to what Greenwald has to say:

        Youtube: 2min25sec: 27 Mar: Ingraham Angle/Fox: Glenn Greenwald UNLOADS on Jeff Zucker & CNN (& MSNBC): “They are Fraudsters”
        posted by Edriss
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn7iFYm1JAs

        27 Mar: The Hill: Dershowitz: CNN banned me ‘because they want a one-sided presentation’
        By Joe Concha
        Attorney Alan Dershowitz on Monday asserted on Fox News that he thought he had been banned from appearing on CNN “because they want a one-sided presentation” in analyzing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
        “I have been right from day one, and almost all the other pundits and professors have just been dead wrong,” Dershowitz told “The Story” anchor Martha MacCallum.
        “CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”
        “CNN wouldn’t have me on the air because they want a one-sided presentation, and everybody who watches CNN was shocked by the conclusions,” Dershowitz, who is an opinion contributor for The Hill, added…

        Dershowitz used to regularly appear on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC to talk about the Mueller investigation, but has only appeared on Fox News for the past several months…
        “They misinformed the American public and they have to have some public accountability,” he added…
        https://thehill.com/homenews/media/435783-dershowitz-cnn-banned-me-because-they-want-a-one-sided-presentation

        80

    • #
      TdeF

      The Australian Newspaper and online news had a big article. See #3 by Robber.
      The Courier Mail as well but perhaps also behind a pay wall. Others are silent but it is hot news in Climate circles. The usual suspects, the ABC/Guardian are pretending nothing is happening and it is all Peter’s fault anyway. The IPA is posting the videos on Youtube, so the world is watching with 1,528 views.

      121

      • #
        TdeF

        Besides, it’s not just an unfair dismissal case, it’s a major whistleblower case on the entire Great Barrier Reef scam which is soaking up billions of dollars of public money, our money.

        83

        • #
          Gee aye

          Lucky for him and you there will be no investigation of what you think supports his whistleblowing credentials.

          416

          • #
            Bill in Oz

            Gosh what a mean nasty comment G A

            Did you have indigestion after your lunch

            As well as bile in the gut from stress ?

            93

            • #
              Gee aye

              What was mean and nasty?

              This case is not about investigating the GBR and if the correctness of Ridd’s various statements and writings was the criteria for the judgement then Ridd would have no hope. He will be saying things like, “whether or not I am proved correct, I am free under my conditions of work to offer critiques of colleague’s work so long as I do not do so in a vexatious or deliberately provocative manner”.

              511

              • #
                AndyG55

                “correctness of Ridd’s various statements and writings was the criteria for the judgement then Ridd would have no hope.”

                On the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that Peter Ridd is correct about the fra*d and scientific malpractice going on at JCU.

                His case is actually quite solid.. Not that you would comprehend.

                102

              • #
                el gordo

                Mr Leaf its about corruption in high places, the outcome of which could change the course of history.

                73

            • #
              ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

              It’s not in GA’s gut anymore. Someone needs a nappy change.

              32

          • #
            AndyG55

            MAGNITUDES more credentials that YOU will ever have little nag. !!

            Peter Ridd has Been studying the GBR for many years as part of his work.

            You on the other hand are CLUELESS about basically everything.

            63

          • #
            TdeF

            Pathetic Troll.

            62

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              TdeF.

              Look on the bright side. Another contributor to the chocolate fund is always welcome.

              KK

              42

          • #
            Phoenix 44

            Because you know he’s wrong or because you don’t like science being investigated to see if it’s correct? You seem to be taking in increasingly bizarre positions to defend what us wrong.

            13

        • #
          • #
            AndyG55

            The idiot pfutz STRIKES-OUT yet again

            The ATO guys was doing illegal activity like phone tapping, recording conversations, copying protected information etc etc.

            Surly even YOU can’t be DUMB enough to not know the difference.

            62

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Pat,

      Today’s “The Australian” carried a 17 para article on page 8.

      As usual, it’s and excellent piece of journalism.

      71

    • #
  • #
    pat

    posted a comment with a link with the “f” word, so it’s gone into moderation.

    20

  • #
    pat

    28 Mar: Daily Mail: The Greens’ extraordinary plan to BAN coal in Australia – calling it ‘the new asbestos – despite exports earning $66BILLION every year
    •The Greens have released the details of their radical plan to stop coal industry
    •Senator Di Natale plans to ban coal and says fossil fuels are ‘the new asbestos’
    •He said burning of coal remained the single biggest cause of climate change
    •The minor party also wants nation to be running on renewable energy by 2030
    By Mark Brook, Australian Associated Press
    The party on Thursday released a new climate plan, which sets 2030 as the target year for the nation to be running on 100 per cent renewable energy.

    The policy – which comes with a call to arms from Swedish school student Greta Thunberg – shows how the Greens would push a Labor government if elected in May…

    The party wants to put an end to thermal coal burning by setting a yearly limit on coal exports from 2020 and reducing it every year until it hits zero in 2030.
    At the same time, the party is pushing for the nation to be running on 100 per cent renewable energy by the time the coal industry ceases trading…

    The plan would include a $65billion carbon tax, and an immediate ban on new coal mines, fracking and conventional onshore and offshore gas and oilfields.
    Industry experts said the economy will suffer under the plan…

    Mr Di Natale has denied his party’s plan to shut down all coal-fired power stations and phase out thermal coal exports will cost Australians jobs…
    ‘We will lose no jobs because under our plan we will have a national authority, a publicly-owned authority, with express intent to manage this transition,’ he told ABC Radio National on Thursday.
    ‘The reality is this is happening already, people are going to lose their jobs because the economics are making it so.’
    Mr Di Natale said unlike the major parties, the Greens planned to create a jobs boom in the renewable energy export industry…

    As part of the plan, the Greens want the nation to stop using gas – despite experts saying the energy source is an essential part of future energy sources.
    Phasing out petrol cars and moving to electric vehicles was another key objective mentioned in the Greens idealistic plan.
    Luxury fossil fuel cars would be hit with a 17 per cent tax to help pay for scrapping registration fees, import tariffs, GST and stamp duty on electric vehicles…
    ‘You need the Greens in the Senate to push Labor to make sure we do what needs to be done,’ he said…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6857879/The-Greens-extraordinary-plan-BAN-coal-despite-bringing-Australia-66BILLION-year.html

    50

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Let’s hope that all comes true. I like the greens and all of their policies

      412

      • #
        AndyG55

        ROFLMAO.

        You want the destruction of Australia… really !!!

        What a low-life !!

        62

      • #
        AndyG55

        I dare you to put aside ALL use of oil and coal, or anything derived from or using them

        But you won’t will you, because you are a mindless hypocrite.

        52

      • #
        el gordo

        Its a radical idea, Di Natale should stop exporting coal immediately if he is serious about saving the planet.

        51

      • #
        robert rosicka

        So putz you finally come out of the closet and profess your love of the greens and all their policies, when Brown and that idiot set up the charter for the greens beastiality was being spoke of rather highly .
        Says a lot about you now doesn’t it ?

        43

        • #
          robert rosicka

          And the link would be -

          https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/01-02/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-words/

          Fair way down to the sicko bits but interesting if not disturbing reading in between, you really are a sick puppy putz if you agree with all this garbage .

          62

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            At least I don’t support a bunch of “Port Arthur was a sting” lets have more guns, and not make any sense party,

            FYI
            https://greens.org.au/policy

            Nothing to be ashamed of in that.

            37

            • #
              robert rosicka

              Baa baaa , moo moo

              34

            • #
              AndyG55

              poor pfutz… The petulance goes with your ignorance and arrogance

              A soul… so, so EMPTY, as to be beyond redemption… poor pfutz

              What a sad, sad little swamp creature.

              43

            • #
              AndyG55

              WOW, you really are a sick-minded, ignorant, little hard-leftist troll if you think those policies aren’t going to lead to the collapse of Australian society.

              42

            • #
              AndyG55

              “and not make any sense party,”

              I thought you said you supported the Green ????????

              Cognitive mal-function and mental disturbance are two of your more redeeming features, puddle-pfutz.

              You really don’t seem to have a clue what about you are saying from one moment to the next.

              You seem to have a sort of confused delusional mess inside your little child-mind, as though it never developed out of puberty.

              31

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          I like the greens. And I don’t shoot things for fun.

          46

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            The beauty of Democracy and the Rule of Law is that even the most inane get to have their say. That makes for amusement and diversity. Something the Greens hate.

            The fact that the Greens get such a miserable vote speaks highly of the powers of discrimination that exist within the Australian electorate. Something else the Greens hate.

            Put the Greens last. Everywhere. Make no exceptions. That’s my plea.

            73

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Your response seems to confirm your acceptance of the sick green agenda , I have just one question how do you ask an animal for consent ?
            I have never questioned Port Arthur nor voted One Nation and how can it be wrong to shoot clay targets and metallic silhouette for fun .

            43

          • #
            AndyG55

            “And I don’t shoot things for fun.”

            Except your mouth.

            What a pathetic way to live your life, as a low-end far-leftist swamp-troll.

            42

            • #
              robert rosicka

              One Nation might be a bit whacky but after reading that link the Greens are dead set fruit loops who want to make Australia ten times worse than Venezuela.

              62

  • #
    Dennis

    “This week Business Council of Australia chief Jennifer Westacott played the reality card on Labor’s 45-50 per cent targets for emissions and renewables: “We don’t have a plan to do this.
    How are we going to do this? If it’s economy wide, what is the mechanism by which we (Labor) are going to do this? Is it a cap and trade system? Is it the national energy guarantee? Is it a base-loading credit system? Are we going to exempt the trade-exposed sector?
    Are we going to allow the ‘carry over’ for Kyoto?
    I think the Australian people are entitled to understand how these things will be achieved. This is the history of the problem – people say stuff, then they try to implement it and everyone goes ‘Oh, hang on, we didn’t mean for those jobs to be gone’ – now we’ll have to have a compensation scheme. Then we stop and then we go backwards and then we make no progress. This is the history.”
    Yet nothing Westacott said – policy realities that must be faced by any Shorten government – impinge on the current climate change mantras that dominate our public debate. Just listen to the independent progressives crusading on climate change in leafy Liberal seats to grasp how much this debate has regressed over the past 15 years.
    They talk endlessly about saving the planet and the urgency for Australia to do more, as though the policy and political obstacles of the past 15 years never happened….”

    51

  • #
    pat

    27 Mar: ClimateChangeNews: After 25 years of failure, we should abandon the UNFCCC
    Emissions are at record levels and the international treaty designed to rein them in cannot drive action, it is time for new ideas to be explored
    By Chandra Bhushan
    (Chandra Bhushan is deputy director feneral of the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi)
    UNFCCC was adopted with an objective to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Over the past 25 years, greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, far from stabilising, have reached record levels…

    The global temperature too has steadily increased from 0.25C above the pre-industrial era in the early 1990s to an increase of 1.1C in 2018. Very soon, the temperature increase is likely to hit 1.5C…

    The fact is that the global energy system has changed little over the last 25 years. In 1994, about 80% of the global primary energy supply came from fossil fuels. This figure has remained unchanged in 2018. The number of energy poor has also remained the same. In 1994, about 2.8 billion people used polluting solid fuels to cook food – this number too remains the same in 2018. So, we have neither been able to shift the global energy system away from fossil fuels nor have we been able to provide adequate amounts of clean energy to all. And, this has happened because global cooperation on energy and climate change has weakened, rather than strengthened, over the years…

    The UNFCCC has moved from a top-down legally binding Kyoto Protocol to a bottom-up ‘self-determined’ voluntary Paris Agreement. Today, there is a question mark over the survival of the weak Paris Agreement itself. The United States has promised to leave the agreement and on its way out it, along with other big polluters, fatally weakened the Paris rulebook…

    It doesn’t have the tools to drive global collective action to combat climate change. In such a situation, the continuation of the international effort at the UNFCCC should be curtailed and energy directed elsewhere…
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/03/27/25-years-failure-abandon-unfccc/

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      That gets a tick, not for just reporting, but for a good thing – fold the UNFCC.

      31

      • #
        Serp

        Yes. Then we can desiccate Christiana Figueres, pelletise her and put her in a shipment to Drax.

        31

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          She’s already pretty well desiccated.

          I doubt even a Botox specialist could help in that regard.

          Then there’s her brain. Neurogenisis has let her down there too. But, in a way, that makes sense. She really is a Porifera; as are all socialists.

          21

    • #

      New Zealanders worry about our current shambles of a government are going to implement new taxes to pay for all their stuff-ups, when $1.4 billion is going offshore each year for a decade to pay other nations to reduce THEIR emissions. That’s a third of our agricultural GDP disappearing into the unknown to appease the Great Climate God in the Sky.

      The lunatics used to be locked up, now they’re running the place.

      31

  • #
    pat

    if only China could get that ETS together!

    27 Mar: Daily Mail: AFP: Can China keep its climate promises?
    China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers said Tuesday.
    Tripling the share of non-fossil fuels will require a major overhaul of China’s recalcitrant power sector and the full deployment of a fledgling emissions trading system, they said in the journal Nature Communications…

    If the world’s top carbon polluter fails to achieve these and other voluntary targets, the 2015 treaty’s cornerstone goal of capping global warming at “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) ***MAY remain out of reach…

    “China is on track to achieve its climate commitments,” lead author Kelly Sims, director of The Fletcher School’s Climate Policy Lab at Tufts University, told AFP.
    “It is not pulling back from implementing the Paris Agreement even though US President Donald Trump signalled his intention to do so.”…

    The only major climate policy exclusively aimed at reducing CO2 levels is China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS).
    Introduced in 2017, it is set to cover more than 1,700 power companies and some three billion tonnes in greenhouse gas emissions.
    China’s total emissions in 2018 topped 10 billion tonnes of CO2, well over a quarter of the world total…

    “The main challenge is completing power sector reform,” said Sims.
    “There is political resistance from owners of existing coal plants, and from the provinces with major coal production and coal use.”…
    The Carbon Action Tracker, which evaluates the CO2 reduction efforts in relation to capacity, has labelled Beijing’s “highly insufficient.”
    “Discouragingly, a rise in coal consumption drove Chinese CO2 emissions to a new high in 2017, which will likely be exceeded again in 2018,” it noted…

    “But China cannot stop climate change alone,” Sims said.
    “All of the major industrialised countries will need to reduce their emissions, and rapidly developing countries will need to implement alternative growth strategies with the help of wealthier countries.”
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6855131/Can-China-climate-promises.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    updated 27 Mar: The Hindu: India’s carbon dioxide emissions up 5%
    by Special Correspondent
    IEA report shows China, U.S. & India together accounted for nearly 70% of the rise in energy demand.
    India emitted 2,299 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018, a 4.8% rise from last year, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). India’s emissions growth this year was higher than that of the United States and China — the two biggest emitters in the world — and this was primarily due to a rise in coal consumption…

    However the IEA report, made public on Tuesday, showed that India’s energy intensity improvement declined 3% from last year even as its renewable energy installations increased 10.6% from last year…
    Global energy consumption in 2018 increased at nearly twice the average rate of growth since 2010, driven by a robust global economy and higher heating and cooling needs in some parts of the world. Demand for all fuels increased, led by natural gas, even as solar and wind posted double digit growth. Higher electricity demand was responsible for over half of the growth in energy needs. Energy efficiency saw lacklustre improvement. As a result of higher energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.7% last year and hit a new record, the authors of the report said in a press statement…

    India says it will cost at least (US) $2.5trillion to implement its climate pledge, around 71% of the combined required spending for all developing country pledges.
    https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/indias-carbon-dioxide-emissions-up-5/article26646376.ece

    30

  • #
    pat

    here’s the solution, says Ben Santer – Dump Trump:

    25 Mar: Scientific American blog: How to Deal with Chaos in Climate and Politics
    In complex systems, small changes can make big differences
    By Ben Santer
    I am obsessed with “large initial-condition ensembles”—LICE. These are climate models that run multiple scenarios to reflect uncertainties about the system’s past. I’ve been working with them for the last year. Most major climate modeling centers have LICE. They are a valuable scientific tool for trying to understand the relative sizes of a human-caused global warming signal and the noise of natural climate variability…

    In the real world, of course, we don’t have many slightly different parallel Earths or a handy time machine. We can’t travel back to 1950 and change the initial conditions of the climate system. Nor can we travel back to 2016 and change the initial conditions of the U.S. political landscape. We cannot tell the U.S. voters of 2016 that by 2019, students around the world will be striking to protest government inaction on climate change. We cannot tell 2016 voters that some of them will witness the death and destruction caused by hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Florence and Michael. That Paradise will be lost in a firestorm. That President Trump will opt out of the Paris climate accord. That fossil fuel burning will continue unabated, warming the planet, melting major ice sheets, raising sea level, diminishing the habitability of low-lying cities and sowing the seeds of an unprecedented climate-change diaspora.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we clearly see consequences of the decision taken by the citizens of the United States on November 8, 2016…
    We can speak out when the president is untruthful, embraces dictators, uses hateful speech, undermines democratic institutions, demeans allies, abrogates treaties and initiates trade wars. We can ask our elected representatives whether their pledge of allegiance is to “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” or to Donald J. Trump. We can be tireless advocates for decency, honesty, kindness and rationality. We can ensure that our children’s concerns about their climate future are heard, not mocked. ***Scientists can speak publicly about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change; we can encourage our professional institutions and academies to do the same…
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-deal-with-chaos-in-climate-and-politics/

    ***clearly Peter Ridd would prefer a debate.

    30

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Santer’s hate speak pervades most, if not all, of what he says these days.

      This propensity for hate speech and personal invective appears to be increasingly common to all green/left/socialists.

      Why is it so?

      31

      • #
        Dave in the States

        Why is it so?

        Because it all they got.

        And computer model results are not data no matter how many times they are run.

        31

  • #
    pat

    26 Mar: Axios: Coal demand is making it difficult to get carbon emissions under control
    Overall coal demand moved up slightly in 2018, by 0.7%, as higher use in India and China offset declines in Europe and the U.S., according to the IEA data on coal.
    by Ben Geman
    Carbon emissions from coal-fired plants are nonetheless growing in absolute terms as the chart above shows, and coal remains the largest source of worldwide electricity production, IEA said.
    •”Coal-fired power generation continues to be the single largest emitter, accounting for 30% of all energy-related carbon dioxide emissions,” the report states.
    •Coal-fired power was also the single biggest source of last year’s global emissions growth

    IEA points out that a big chunk of that coal-fired generation comes from fairly young plants in Asia, where “average plants are only 12 years old, decades younger than their average economic lifetime of around 40 years.”
    https://www.axios.com/coal-demand-carbon-emissions-climate-change-e4ff043a-e371-42c5-9333-cc01d1a633ca.html

    00

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    OFF TOPIC : NOT MY ABC

    SOME OTHER BLOODY IDIOT’S ABC

    ABC headline for the online story : “US Marines reject pleads guilty to kidnapping 13yo Jayme Closs and killing her parents”

    But if you actually read the story : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-28/jayme-closs-kidnapper-pleads-guilty-to-murdering-parents/10948178

    You discover that this double murderer & child kidnapper, WANTED to join the US Marines but was thrown out after one month of training as not suitable.

    When will the ABC’s dopiness ever end ?

    71

    • #
      TdeF

      The only reason the ABC exists is to provide unbiased factual reporting. That is why even the government has no direct control. It was created with an unbreakable charter which required unbiased reporting.
      It is a monster, far bigger than Murdoch or anyone else and completely out of control, accountable to no one and between themselves and the pointless SBS, spends $40Million a week of our money.

      Sell the ABC. If we get nothing, that is what it is worth.

      Sell the CSIRO and BOM and all the Quangos supervising the government ordered stealing from our electricity bills. Clean energy? Highway robbery.

      Even Canberra city has $37Million of stolen money for operating publicly funded windmills. The biggest rort in Australian history.

      And we want the $444 million back. No one went to tender, no one applied for the money and we still have no explanation for Lucy Turnbull’s gift to her mates.

      102

      • #
        TdeF

        Especially if Peter Ridd is right and there is nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef, or nothing which is not perfectly natural.

        72

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Bill the ABC motto , never let the truth get in the way of a good story !

      11

  • #
    pat

    Youtube: 44min32sec: 27 Mar: Hannity: Trump talks Mueller report fallout in ‘Hannity’ exclusive – FULL
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW1ygw00px0

    VIDEO: 14min43sec: 27 Mar: Fox News: Trump vows to release FISA docs now that Mueller probe is concluded, slams ‘treasonous’ FBI
    by Gregg Re; Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report
    President Trump, in an exclusive wide-ranging interview Wednesday night with Fox News’ “Hannity,” vowed to release the full and unredacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and related documents used by the FBI to probe his campaign, saying he wants to “get to the bottom” of how the long-running Russia collusion narrative began.

    Trump told anchor Sean Hannity that his lawyers previously had advised him not to take that dramatic step out of fear that it could be considered obstruction of justice.
    “I do, I have plans to declassify and release. I have plans to absolutely release,” Trump said…”A lot of people wanted me to do it a long time ago. I’m glad I didn’t do it. We got a great result without having to do it, but we will. One of the reasons that my lawyers didn’t want me to do it, is they said, if I do it, they’ll call it a form of obstruction.”
    Trump added: “Frankly, thought it would be better if we held it to the end. But at the right time, we will be absolutely releasing.”

    Trump also accused FBI officials of committing “treason” — slamming former FBI Director James Comey as a “terrible guy,” former CIA Director John Brennan as potentially mentally ill, and Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as a criminal…

    Citing a high-level source, Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul late Wednesday tweeted that anti-Trump ex-CIA Director John Brennan had internally pushed the dossier (LINK). Fox News has not independently verified Paul’s source…
    “I think Brennan’s a sick person, really I do,” Trump said, sharply criticizing Brennan’s “horrible” claims in recent weeks that Trump had committed treason himself. “I think there’s something wrong with him.”
    “When I said there could be somebody spying on my campaign, it went wild out there,” Trump told Hannity. “They couldn’t believe I could say such a thing. As it turned out, that was small potatoes compared to what went on. … Millions and millions [spent] on the phony dossier, and then they used the dossier to start things. It was a fraud, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.”

    Just hours earlier Wednesday, Trump made clear he was enthusiastic about the idea of appointing a second special counsel to review the origins of the Russia investigation when it came up during a meeting Tuesday with Republican senators, a source familiar with the discussions told Fox News…

    “If you wrote this as a novel, nobody would buy it; it would be a failure, because it would be too unbelievable,” Trump said. “We’re getting to the bottom of it. This can never, ever happen to a president again. That was a disgrace and an embarrassment to our country. … Hopefully they won’t get away with it.
    “We’ll have to see how it all started, but I’m going to leave that to other people, including the attorney general and others, to make that determination,” Trump continued. “Fifty years, 100 years from now — if someone tries the same thing, they have to know the penalty will be very very great if and when they get caught.”

    Trump also lashed out at Schiff, D-Calif., who has pushed strongly for investigations into possible Trump-Russia links. “Schiff is a bad guy, he knew he was lying — he’s not a dummy. For a year and a half he would just leak and call up CNN and others. You know, I watch him, so sanctimonious … He knew it was a lie, and he’d get in the back room with his friends in the Democrat Party, and they would laugh like hell. In one way, you could say it’s a crime what he did — he was making statements he knew were false. He’s a disgrace to our country.”…

    Trump also criticized Comey, whom he’d fired in 2017, as a “terrible guy.” He insisted he did not fire him to obstruct justice, telling Hannity he knew that firing Comey would only increase scrutiny on the White House.
    “It was treason, it was really treason,” Trump said, referring to texts between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that discussed an “insurance policy” in the event of Trump’s election.
    “You had dirty cops, you had people who are bad FBI folks … At the top, they were not clean, to put it mildly.” He said later, “We can never allow these treasonous acts to happen to another president.”…

    Separately, Trump also said he hopes Democrats continue pushing the Green New Deal, which flamed out in a test vote on Tuesday, as most Democrats voted “present” instead of going on record supporting the sweeping transformation of the entire U.S. economy…
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-to-release-fisa-docs-now-that-mueller-probe-is-concluded-slams-treasonous-fbi

    ***35min50sec: Green New Deal. Trump doesn’t want to speak too much about it, because he doesn’t want the Dems to drop it. he wants to run against it in 2020.

    20

  • #
    pat

    safe ground for academics:

    VIDEO: 54sec: 27 Mar: University of Illinois at Chicago: White people’s eating habits produce most greenhouse gases
    White individuals disproportionately affect the environment through their eating habits by eating more foods that require more water and release more greenhouse gases through their production compared to foods black and Latinx individuals eat, according to a new report published (LINK) in the Journal of Industrial Ecology…

    “The food pipeline – which includes its production, distribution and waste – contributes significantly to climate change through the production of greenhouse gases and requires significant amounts of water and land, which also has environmental effects,” said Joe Bozeman, a student in the University of Illinois at Chicago Institute for Environmental Science and Policy and first author on the paper. “If we are to draft policies related to food, they can’t be one-size-fits-all policies because different populations have different eating patterns which have their own unique impacts on the environment.”

    Bozeman and his colleagues analyzed data from The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s What We Eat in America – Food Commodity Intake Database – which provides per capita food consumption estimates for more than 500 types of food (such as apples, poultry, bread) as well as water – and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which provides estimates of individual dietary intake…
    This research was funded in part by the Institute for Environmental Science and Policy of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Diversity Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fellowship from Bayer-Monsanto.
    https://today.uic.edu/white-peoples-eating-habits-produce-most-greenhouse-gases

    27 Mar: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: STUDY: White people’s eating habits produce most greenhouse gases – Published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology
    Climate Depot Note: This is not the first time that “white people” were blamed for causing bad weather or changing the climate. See LINKS
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/27/study-white-peoples-eating-habits-produce-most-greenhouse-gases-published-in-the-journal-of-industrial-ecology/

    10

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Surely this should be rubbished as racist nonsense !

      Would any of us be allowed to state : Black ( or brown or red or yellow ) folk ‘release more greenhouse gases”..

      Without even reading it, we know up front academic racist twaddle !

      22

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Joe Bozeman, a student in the University of Illinois at Chicago Institute for Environmental Science and Policy and first author on the paper.

      So Joe’s had his mid-semester paper published in a journal that his lecturer (Thomas Teis, PhD, Professor and Director, The Institute for Environmental Science and Policy – second author on the paper?) has an “in” with? A journal that’s running out of things to publish?

      Thomas Teis, PhD, needs to be investigated for self-righteousness.

      01

  • #
    pat

    25 Mar: Columbia Journalism Review: Journalists weren’t part of a conspiracy. They were doing their jobs.
    By Nausicaa Renner
    Matt Taibbi, for instance, compared the media’s focus on the report to its backing of the Iraq War by buying into the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the press’s role here is much less consequential, and the Mueller report is much more than a story about the press: because of the report, we now know, with certainty, that Russians actively attempted to influence the 2016 elections. That’s not nothing. Working journalists — encouraged by Trump and his supporters to feel as though they’ve taken part in a conspiracy by paying close attention to Mueller’s investigation — were simply doing what journalists are meant to do: collect all the information possible and see where it leads, even if it leads nowhere. That’s not dabbling in conspiracy theories (as Trump does when he invokes Alex Jones, for instance), it’s reporting…

    Journalists must be patient, persistent, and pay attention to minute details. A reporter’s job is to notice things that no one else has noticed…

    One of the most damaging marks that the Trump presidency is leaving on the American people is collapsing journalism into the world of conspiracy…
    Advertisement at top: CJR Special Event: Covering Climate Change RSVP
    https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/media-mueller-report-conspiracy.php

    first 12min15sec of Tucker: FakeNewsMSM pivots as one to health care, on the orders or Nancy Pelosi! very funny, sort of:

    Youtube: Tucker Carlson, Fox News, 27 Mar 2019
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXHtim5gNmY

    00

  • #
    pat

    novel length, EXCELLENT:

    25 Mar: BigLeaguePolitics: Here’s The Full Story of How Obama, Hillary and Brennan Carried Out The Crime of the Century
    by Patrick Howley
    We have explosive information about this scheme, including the involvement of former president Barack Obama, Obama intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper, failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, the Fusion GPS set-up agent Natalia Veselnitskaya, and even foreign leaders including Angela Merkel.
    This article will firmly demonstrate the following…READ ALL
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/howley-heres-the-full-story-of-how-obama-hillary-and-brennan-carried-out-the-crime-of-the-century/

    20

  • #
    pat

    27 Mar: Breitbart: Exclusive — Rand Paul: ‘Absolutely’ James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Others Should Testify on Spygate Role, Be Subpoenaed if Necessary
    by Matthew Boyle
    “The president was at lunch today and he voiced his support for investigating the people who concocted this hoax,” Paul told Breitbart News. “He didn’t use the word hoax, those are my words, but I think we should get to the bottom of this and he believes we should get to the bottom of this because this should never happen to another president. He feels that it’s damaging to the country, damaging to the ability to lead the country, that we basically—somebody within the Obama administration, within the DOJ and the FBI, basically concocted an investigation, trumped it up to be something that it wasn’t and then we’ve gone through two years of the country being stalled because of this fake investigation.”

    When asked specifically if former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice should be called to testify about their role in the matter—and be subpoenaed to force their testimony if they refuse to voluntarily comply—Paul said: “Absolutely.”

“We have John Brennan, who lied to us, who spied on the Senate and tapped into Senate computers,” Paul said. “We have James Clapper who came before the Intelligence Committee and said they weren’t collecting all of our phone data. So both Brennan and Clapper have been known to lie in official testimony. They should be brought forward and asked what was their part? What was their role in ginning up this dossier? Amazingly, most media outlets wouldn’t even print the dossier because they thought it was so unsubstantiated. And then all of a sudden, the FBI gives it credence. There’s one interesting story out today that says still no one would print it, so then Comey gives it to President Trump and that’s when it’s been leaked and then we have a news story saying that this dossier had been given to the president and that became the hook or the story.”…

    “I think it’s a terrible tragedy,” Paul said of the investigation. “It cost us $30 million, two years to go through all of this, the media has been so consumed by all of this that they have barely had time to report on any of the real news of the day. I think we shouldn’t allow this to happen again to a Republican or a Democrat.”

    For now, the full Mueller report is not yet public—and Paul said he intends to object to its full release until such time as all the documents regarding the Obama administration’s abuse of power to start this “hoax” investigation are also released.

    “My plan is to object to the release of the Mueller report and/or all of the Mueller information until they also release the complete information from the White House, DOJ, FBI, on why they chose to credit the dossier,” Paul said. “What were the discussions? And who was it who was promoting that the dossier was real? How did it come about? How were all these judgments made? So, the other side wants to read a million pages of Mueller report. We’re going to want to read a million pages of how this whole Russian hoax got started.”

    This is the first part of a lengthy interview with Sen. Paul on Spygate in the wake of the Mueller probe clearing President Trump on all matters. More is forthcoming soon.
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/26/exclusive-rand-paul-absolutely-james-clapper-john-brennan-susan-rice-others-should-testify-spygate-role-subpoenaed-necessary/

    10

  • #
    Phoenix 44

    This case seems to rest on the argument that scientists at a university cannot be critical of each others work. That seems to say that science cannot be conducted at that university.

    62

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      But science is settled, ergo….

      Kumbaya song sheets for all academics….

      12

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Interestingly, my wife who works in govt , said that in places of academia, it can degenerate, Lord of the Flies style, into vicious group think and back stabbing…..

      Living proof all academics should be walked regularly and given treats occasionally…

      42

      • #
        TdeF

        Every group has that. Politics only takes 3 people.

        However this is not about office or even faculty politics. This is about the Great Barrier Reef scam, a huge industry based almost entirely on falsehoods, not rational science. A typical physicist who insists on fact based rational science, Peter’s persistent truth telling has upset a lot of people, including the people who manage this huge business as a private fiefdom, accountable to no one. In days past he would have been fed to the sharks. Oops, I mean lawyers.

        I would also ask people to stop call it ‘the’ science. There is no ‘the’ in science. ‘The’ science is a fantasy creation of the fact free, logic free Greens who insist that no change can possibly be natural.

        30

  • #

    First yer guess , then yer TEST, t – e – s – t!

    31

  • #
    pat

    27 Mar: New Scientist: Article 13: A guide to the new EU copyright rules and the ban on memes
    By Frank Swain
    The European Union has passed a wide-reaching update to copyright laws, the first since 2001. Most of the changes in the EU Copyright Directive are uncontroversial, setting out how copyright contracts are managed and licensed, but Article 13 could have a huge impact on how material is shared online. Put simply, it makes websites responsible for ensuring that content uploaded to their platforms doesn’t breach copyright. The updates will become law once member states enshrine the rules in legislation in their own countries…

    Certain services are exempted, including non-profit encyclopaedias like ***Wikipedia, software development platforms like Github, and cloud storage services…

    It is platform owners rather than internet users who bear the brunt of these new rules, but they may spell the end of some of your favourite content-sharing websites. If you own a website or a forum in which people can post text, images or video clips, you will be responsible for ensuring no unlicensed material appears…

    Why is it controversial?
    How long have you got? Users say the rules risk killing off vibrant internet culture, such as ***memes, which often repurpose unlicensed material…

    Although websites less than three years old, or with less than €10 million annual turnover are exempt, the websites will still need to plan for when those caveats no longer apply to them…
    For certain, tech companies going into business in Europe will have to negotiate an extra layer of regulation which didn’t exist before. Critics say many of them will simply opt to set up in the US instead.

    What happens next?
    To become law, EU member states must pass legislation that adheres to the rules set out in the directive, so it is likely to be some time before the restrictions take effect. There is likely to be a series of campaigns against the changes as well as legal challenges in national and EU courts.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2197907-article-13-a-guide-to-the-new-eu-copyright-rules-and-the-ban-on-memes/

    00

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 2min58sec: IPA: Peter Ridd Court Case | Day 3 Update from Brisbane – 28 March 2019
    by Gideon Rozner
    https://ipa.org.au/peterridd

    20

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    In case anyone has missed this :

    A new discussion of the BOM’s ACORN Sat versions one & two.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

    The latest episode deals with BOM’s treatment of the data for South Australia

    21

  • #
    pat

    when it comes to China, even “an additional 290 GW of capacity” of coal will only make it ***near impossible to reconcile with emission reductions needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

    however, Australia building a single coal-fired plant would destroy the planet!

    28 Mar: Reuters: China bucking global shift from coal-fired power – environmental study
    Satellite images show China “quietly resumed” construction in 2018 on dozens of previously shelved coal power plants, says a report by green groups
    * China could still add 290 GW of new coal-fired plants
    By David Stanway
    SHANGHAI, March 28 – China restarted construction on more than 50 gigawatts (GW) of suspended coal-fired power plants last year, bucking a global shift away from fossil fuels, a new study showed on Thursday…

    But satellite images show China “quietly resumed” construction in 2018 on dozens of previously shelved plants, making it a “glaring exception to the global decline”, said a joint report by environmental groups Global Energy Monitor, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club…

    The report warned that China could build an additional 290 GW of capacity – more than the whole of the United States’ coal capacity – and still remain within the 1,300-GW cap for national coal-fired power generation proposed by the China Electricity Council, an influential industry group…

    Lauri Myllyvirta, analyst with Greenpeace’s Global Air Pollution Unit, said Chinese firms are now “pushing for hundreds of additional coal-fired power plants”.
    “Another coal power construction spree would be ***near impossible to reconcile with emission reductions needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming,” he said…
    http://news.trust.org//item/20190327234846-ow8mz/

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Fits here

    “The Sound Of Stifled Science”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/03/28/the-sound-of-stifled-science/

    Another 2 cents worth from Nature

    20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Now I’m flummoxed because this post by Jo is about Day 2 of the hearing and we’ve finished Day 3.
    Guess I’ll just comment here unless a more appropriate thread appears.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Having been in the back of the court room over the last 3 days, I can offer my opinion as a spectator.

    It has been a bit of a rollercoaster, starting off well for Ridd, then getting a battering on Day 2, and finally taking a much more positive turn in the final afternoon of Day 3. I took quite a few notes but in the end I’m not sure most of them really matter. In my lay opinion, it reduces to just two crucial questions of legal interpretation.

    #1 Should an academic’s right of intellectual freedom be interpreted narrowly in the sense of being literally defined by clause 14 of the JCU Enterprise Agreement and limited by the referenced Code of Conduct, as JCU argued, versus should this right be interpreted broadly as a historic tradition defined by the purpose of a University and without limitation by the Code of Conduct, as Ridd’s counsel argued?

    #2 Has Ridd’s team persuaded the judge that enough of the original allegations of misconduct were not supported by law that there are not enough remaining examples of misconduct to qualify as a pattern of misconduct sufficient for termination of his employment?

    These two points are connected in that order because an acceptance that intellectual freedom is broadly defined is necessary for then proving that any of the original findings against Dr Ridd were unlawful. Indeed, Ridd’s QC Wood argued at length that every single one of the allegations against Ridd were about behaviour that was protected under his Clause 14 right to intellectual freedom and has never contested that his behaviour breached the Code of Conduct. The broad interpretation of academic freedom is therefore crucial to his defense.

    It’s often said the main purpose of a lawyer is to ensure their client gets the best possible defense. After the 2nd day’s performances nobody can say that QC Murdoch gave anything less than a red hot go for his client JCU. He just about had me sold and even the judge seemed to be following JCU’s narrow construction argument for a short while. The QC’s oral argument in part was that the Code of Conduct was “not a satellite document” because the EA (enterprise agreement) called out and referenced the Code of Conduct in several places and so could not be interpreted independently of it. This seemed like a pretty good argument on first glance. The two QCs took every chance they got to dispute each other’s interpretation. Seemed to me this Code of Conduct must be the SpaceX rocket of legal documents, because one minute it was an orbiting satellite, the next minute it was on solid ground, and then it was back to being a satellite again! :)

    Day 3 was QC Wood’s chance to fling the CoC back into orbit and did so with a practical counter-argument. IIRC, it went like this: Under federal regulation every change in the effective conditions of an EA must pass a “no relative disadvantage” test, which has to be carried out by the Fair Work Commission. However a CoC can be modified at any time by the employer. The CoC cannot be interpreted as being incorporated by reference into the EA since it has a different process and standard of alteration, plus it does not explicitly use the phrase “incorporate” despite other legal instruments using that word to include subsidiary documents as equals.
    The practical upshot of such incorporation more relevant to the case was that this would indeed have the effect JCU wanted to exploit, which is that the CoC would reduce the right of Intellectual Freedom. QC Wood argued, persuasively in my opinion, that such a limitation being triggered for any of several subjectively defined reasons in the CoC would mean that your Clause 14 right of intellectual freedom would get pulled out from under you exactly at the one time you actually needed it – completely contrary to the purpose and spirit of enumerating the right in the first place!

    In summary, any attempt to make the Code of Conduct prevail over and limit the Clause 14 right of intellectual freedom would:
    • remove the right of intellectual freedom exactly when you need it.
    • be contrary to the original purpose of the right.
    • be contrary to the text of clause 14.3 which says the CoC cannot “detract” from Clause 14.
    • be contrary to the broader history of the use of the right.

    In my humble opinion, this 4-pronged argument didn’t just skewer the respondent’s case, it stuck a fork in it, it’s done! :)

    Only in the fullness of time will we find out which of the above legal interpretations Judge Vasta found most persuasive.

    Another point contested by JCU was Dr Ridd’s explanation for why he went public on Sky News. Dr Ridd in his own cross-examination said he “had no choice” as the disciplinary process had failed to deliver a reasonable outcome and expensive legal proceedings seemed the only other way to fight the censure. JCU’s counsel tried twice to argue that he could have used the university’s own Grievance Process to appeal the decision and he could also have brought the matter to the Fair Work Commission.
    QC Wood countered by stating the disciplinary process was designed to be final and the rules prevented a Grievance Process from being applied to a Disciplinary Process outcome. QC Murdoch had a final chance to dispute this but did not. There was no dispute about the Fair Work Commission being an option, though it was never established during oral arguments whether Dr Ridd even knew this was an option at the time of the first misconduct findings two years ago. Personally I think the wider public scrutiny the case received via the Federal Circuit Court is justfiable given that the historic role of university academics is itself at stake.

    Counsel for the Respondent resisted previous characterisations of the JCU disciplinary process as being like a “star chamber”, since the Grievance process and FWC had been available. Personally I couldn’t see how this could defend the confidentiality directions that had been given to Dr Ridd. It also has similarity to the classic philosophical trope about a tree falling in a forest when nobody is there to see it. If a professor is permitted a method of escaping a star chamber and nobody else talks about it, did the star chamber ever exist? I suggest the answer is Yes.

    Many have stated incorrectly that this court case is about climate change. The case before the judge is not about climate change. It is also not about party politics. The present legal case is about the limits of academic intellectual freedom in Australia and how one university allegedly tried to bend the rules. JCU has always maintained in their legal submissions that Dr Ridd was not being punished for simply having a different opinion about the reef’s health and on Day 2 Mr Murdoch gave the example that no censure had been taken regarding the contents of the book chapter Dr Ridd had published about the reef, nor about his mere presence on Sky News. A tenuous link from Dr Ridd’s case to climate change does exist and it is found by inquiring about the motivation of key individuals to allegedly (in the Applicant’s argument) bend the rules around Dr Ridd. The link became most apparent when the Applicant’s counsel put orally into the public record the contents of an email reply sent by the Deputy Vice Chancellor to Dr Ridd after (IIRC) Dr Ridd had asked during one weekend for the misconduct charges to be dropped and a centre of reef science quality assurace to be set up to address his concerns. The Deputy Vice Chancellor’s rather swift and sharp reply on the subsequent Monday morning was to deny such a solution and curtly suggested to Ridd that he “read more widely” followed by hyperlinks to two mainstream media stories about the reef, one of which was the Guardian newspaper. This revelation brought scarcely-restrained laughter from the public gallery, as we inferred these stories would be the usual Grauniad doomsayer clickbait about the imminent man-made demise of the reef. QC Wood told the court that this email could be interpreted as showing the intensity of the disciplinary procedure against Professor Ridd was also motivated by disagreement with the substance of what Professor Ridd was saying in addition to any concerns about the style of his communications.

    One of Mr Wood’s submissions which drew laughter from Mr Murdoch and his assistant was the assertion that Mr Ridd was simply engaging in the protected right of open inquiry and criticism of the university when he sent the email referred to in paragraph 44 of the Statement of Claims. Stating in a private email that a well known Director of research is a purveyor of “doom science” does not sound like inquiry and isn’t exactly open. At the same time, since it was a private email between friends, how exactly was the director or the university denigrated? Regardless of the privacy issue, Mr Wood argued it was Ridd’s right to communicate his honestly held opinions even in a manner which is insulting. The best part of the email was Ridd’s description of JCU being Orwellian when it is now hard to think of a better descriptive term for JCU’s later reaction in forbidding him from engaging in further satire of the university. This irony was not lost on the audience or the judge.

    Judge Vasta appeared to understand the arguments from both sides very well.
    Stuart Wood QC is to be commended for his final 2 hours of non-stop standing argument against every allegation.
    I look forward to hearing the judgement, which I still have high hopes will go in Dr Ridd’s favour.

    30