The court case is on Day Two of a three day process.
For the latest see GideonRozner on twitter
Also discussing JCU’s search of Peter’s email account.
Judge: ‘Isn’t JCU going through Professor Ridd’s emails itself a breach of confidentiality that is meant to apply in the disciplinary process? This is totally contrary to the spirit of the EBA.’
— Gideon Rozner (@GideonCRozner) March 27, 2019
Peter Ridd Challenges James Cook Uni Sacking
Charlie Pell in The Australian, 2016
The first alleged breach of the code occurred in April 2016, when Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege that images given to the media by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority were misleading.
Professor Ridd said the images of bleached coral reefs near Stone Island, off the coast of Bowen in north Queensland, were misleading because they showed poorly affected corals, which were selected over nearby healthy coral and used to show “broad scale decline” of reef health.
Field technicians working for Professor Ridd took photos in the same vicinity as the bleaching pictures supplied by the university and GBRMPA which showed “spectacular coral living there”.
Professor Ridd told the journalist in the email that the use of the pictures was “a dramatic example of how scientific organisations are happy to spin a story for their own purposes”.
At one stage Professor Ridd was told he could not even discuss the proceedings with his wife, leading Mr Wood to compare the proceedings to a coercive “star chamber”.
Jennifer Marohasy reminds us this incident was a trigger that set off Ridd’s eventual sacking. Ridd objected to the reef near Stone Island in Queensland being used to tell a story of disaster when the reef around Bowen (nearby) is in blooming health. Peter Ridd took photos in 2015 showing that the same area was doing fine and pointed out that anyone could find both good and bad examples of reef in the area and selectively claim a climate change disaster. In 2016 Nature published a paper “characterising recent loss of coral cover” which AustralianGeographic and others used to sell a story of a reef catastrophe.
This is when the censure motion started. Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 2016:
When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.
After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.
His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.
This historic photo shows healthy reef above tide circa 1890.
Reef near Stone Island, Queensland, Photo, 1890
This is allegedly the same area in 1994 showing a coral disaster
Reef near Stone Island, Queensland, Photo, 1994
Again in 2012, the area still hadn’t recovered — or so the story goes
Reef near Stone Island, Queensland, Photo, 2012
Peter Ridd photographs the same area in 2015 showing healthy reef
Note the same landscape in the background.
Reef near Stone Island, Queensland, Photo, 2015
The IPA have supported Peter Ridd in his battle for free speech, and are broadcasting updates:
Day one (yesterday)
…
How curious The JCU states “Professor Ridd ……was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.
Bugger me !
And here I always thought that our Australian scientists were provided with tenure and funding so they could do SCIENCE that has integrity and is honest..
If JCU wants to promote a collegial academic spirit – code for dictatorial ‘don’t rock the boat’, they are very welcome to do so.
But the price of such collegial stupidity is simple : NO TAXPAYER MONEY AT ALL !!
There are other universities that are wiling to put scientific integrity & honesty first, second & third !
As far as I am concerned JCU can wither & die !
362
James Cook University? It’s should be renamed Cook the Books political science foundation.
152
What Australia needs is a False Claims Act, similar to that which applies in the USA.
“False Claims Act, a federal law that allows people not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government against persons and companies that defraud the government. Persons filing under the act can receive a portion of damages.”
Duke U recently was required to repay US$112.5 million for research misconduct.
https://junkscience.com/2019/03/duke-university-pays-feds-112-5-million-in-science-fraud-case/
61
Agree Bill,
Except which are the Universities that are willing to put scientific integrity first, second and third?
I can’t think of any such Universities. Not my alma mater anyway.
131
Peter they would line up pretty smart !
Once they knew the rules of the game.
21
The Cook University might view their reputation differently from promoting scientific integrity and academic excellence. In 2018 it was ranked 369 in the world, has increasing numbers of students, 5000 from overseas. It is also the World’s leading University for the study of coral bleaching. Exposing the lack of evidence to support climate-driven coral bleaching will damage the academic reputation of the University.
But Cook’s academic reputation is already much lower than say the University of Western Australia, ranked 91. Also it much lower in terms of employer reputation at 9.9 v 58.6. Neighboring University of Newcastle (ranked 214) scores 26.2.
One anomaly that could explain trouncing academic freedom. Academic reputation is a low 13.5, but academic citations per faculty are a reasonable 54.9.
51
Thanks for providing all this background, Jo. And for those interested in understanding more about Peter Ridd and how and why a physicist knows so much about coral reef ecosystems, I’ve just posted on this: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/03/whatwouldaphysicistknow/
283
A real scientist then. Not the new generation of pseudo scientists who decide on a conclusion first. Real scientists may soon be banned from consensus science. Possibly for non collegial behaviour which is otherwise known as rocking the boat. Facts have nothing to do with the new sciences. Rene Descartes would be under house arrest like Galileo.
242
It is very hard for an individual who has invested much(me) in tertiary education over the years to find out in the last 25yrs or so, the totalitarian nature of the old seats of knowledge.Malfeasance is writ when these places are corrupted by appeals to lucre.
192
Jennifer, thanks for the link !
Well explained !
Well written !
81
I know how difficult it is to take on these institutions, I had to do the same on my wife’s behalf once (and won), but you can’t let them get away with such things. I hope he is able to give it to them where it hurts.
192
“where it hurts”
Their hip-pocket.
Their reputation can’t be damaged much further than it has been already.
141
This could very well be a turning point for true science and I hope the Govt takes notice after all that half billion could have been spent elsewhere .
142
Or, that 1/2 billion didn’t have to be spent at all, to the benefit of the taxpayer.
192
They haven’t actually spent it yet, the Turnbull 444 million, surely! If so, on what?
61
hilarious video:
TWEET: Mitch McConnell, US Senate Majority Leader:
The Senate voted on the Green New Deal today: 0 Yeas, 57 Nays, and 43 Senators voted PRESENT
VIDEO: 1min42sec
26 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1110675494909956096
71
There are 4 photos, all labelled for 1890, but the accompanying text gives different dates for each photo. Can someone sort it out?
82
I noticed that too. I think someone forgot to change the year after copying the caption to each photo. I doubt there was colour photography back then.
41
Climate Science has hurt itself from the start by refusing to apply quality control to the work that has been done. The university should have listened to Peter Ridd and reacted by upping their game, not trying to shut him down. CAGW is supposed to be the most important issue of our time with massive implications for the planet, humanty, government and business but it has fewer quality rules than a medium sized business. After Climategate there was no excuse for this lackadaisical approach. Weirdly the field still thinks that sensational but dubious results are excusable.
I hope the judge condemns both Peter Ridd’s treatment and climate science’s cavalier attitude to quality.
182
Judge Vasta was scathing today about how JCU reacted to Dr Ridd’s outspoken comments.
He noted Dr Ridd’s criticism of the lack of quality assurance, checking and replication of the science conducted at the institutions.
He said he would have expected to see JCU provide evidence of actual protocols in place to show that such verification was done or that they had taken steps to put such protocols in place.
He was astonished that there was no mention of this in submissions. The JCU reaction to this criticism was a concerted and ongoing attack on Dr Ridd’s conduct.
It was quite brutal. Hopefully an indication of how the case will be decided.
81
Any judge who has had companies before his court trying to excuse a lack of due dilligence should recognise a dodgy outfit when he sees one.
20
Godspeed Peter.
Thomas Jefferson
182
is this a proper role for the UN?
27 Mar: Jamaica Gleaner: Journalists urged to help with climate-change awareness
by Christopher Serju
Caribbean journalists have been challenged to up their game by helping regional populations to fully understand climate change, such as global warming, most of which are linked to the use or misuse of one finite commodity – land!
“Climate change will be the most defining challenge of our times,” Dr Pradeep Monga, deputy executive secretary of the United Nations’ Executive Direction and Management Unit, told regional journalists in Georgetown, Guyana, recently.
“We only have one planet, so we don’t have a Plan B for us,” he reminded the group. “So climate change has to be addressed as a priority because it encompasses everything – economics, social and environmental science. But the main thing is that very few people know climate change can be addressed through land management more than anything else.”
Monga, who was addressing a media training workshop for a group of environmental journalists, said that the fragmented agenda with respect to land creates its own level of hardship…
The message about key issues such as the linkages between land degradation and drought and how these can hinder the 17 Strategic Development Goals for which the United Nations has set a timeline of 2030 needs to be accelerated…
Having done the initial work in documenting the dangers of climate change, scientists now need the help of journalists in sharing this information in ways that Caribbean people and especially parliamentarians will be convinced of the need to be proactive and act in a timely manner to save lives and livelihoods…
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20190327/journalists-urged-help-climate-change-awareness
should journalists agree to be propagandists for the UN?
40
Lets call the climate change thing , propped up with non-science abd spin what it truly is – industrial grade LYING.
Simples.
“Tell a lie big enough and often enough, and people will believe it”
Joseph Goebbels
62
That’s the science of Global Warming in a nutshell.
72
I have recently taken a look at the overall data supporting the case on for global warming causing coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.
I was surprised to find that
1. From the HADSST3 sea surface records, the North and central GBR areas has shown no warming since 1980, and the Southern area less warming than the global average.
2. Bleaching events mostly commonly occur as a result of runs of elevated temperatures. This means after summer heatwaves. The biggest observed mass bleaching events on the GBR reef were in 1998, 2002, 2016 and 2017. The Summer data does not support this. Indeed for the GBR summer 2002 was cooler than average, and even 2016 and 2017 – where global average temperatures were higher due to a strong El Nino event, on the GBR SSTs were not much higher than average.
3. What is quite clear is that observations of coral bleaching have vastly improved. From the 1990s detection of abnormal heat anomalies (which trigger most bleaching events) was developed at the level of approx 50km gridcells through comparison with SST records. In 2015 a new product was launched with 5km gridcells. The numbers of researchers on the water examining coral bleaching is orders of magnitude greater than thirty years ago. There is a clear observation bias. In the vast oceans if people look harder for a feature that is present they will find more examples.
My findings, with data charts, is at.
Is increasing Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching related to climate change or observation bias?
A description of the improvements in satellites of increasing detection of thermal stress is in the introduction to
Heron et al 2016 : Validation of Reef-Scale Thermal Stress Satellite
Products for Coral Bleaching Monitoring
122
Confirmation Bias is the issue Kevin.
82
Interesting to note that a paper was written showing that circular reasoning is the predominate factor:
Abstract
A literature review shows that the circular reasoning fallacy is common in climate change research. It is facilitated by confirmation bias and by activism such that the prior conviction of researchers is subsumed into the methodology. Example research papers on the impact of fossil fuel emissions on tropical cyclones, on sea level rise, and on the carbon cycle demonstrate that the conclusions drawn by researchers about their anthropogenic cause derive from circular reasoning. The validity of the anthropogenic nature of global warming and climate change and that of the effectiveness of proposed measures for climate action may therefore be questioned solely on this basis. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3130131
112
They always see what they expect to see.
102
More importantly the climate consensus shut out that which they do not want to see. That is why freedom of speech and the right for people to disagree are important. In studying economics I always learnt more from a well-expressed but flawed argument, than a poorly expressed but good argument. The same was true of a well-expressed view I disagreed with than a poorly expressed view I agreed with. The climate consensus has very poorly expressed and deeply flawed arguments, such as I found for coral reef bleaching.
41
Keith,
Confirmation bias is an issue, but I do not think it is the fundamental issue at stake here. Rather it is the increasing inability to challenge the biases presented by the climate consensus. Peter Ridd is described above as “a renowned campaigner for quality assurance”. Where there is masses of data potentially available understanding sampling bias and the quality of the samples over time are key factors. In my view free speech is necessary in academia to challenge current assumptions and conjectures and thus develop better understanding.
92
I think its worse than that.
Tomorrows leaders are now pumped through a system that is totalitarian in nature. They survive by wrongly not challenging the systemic brutalisation of freedom of speech.
Silence is rewarded by survival.
Either way you cut it , its just not cricket.
71
America was set up so people could have freedom of religion. Those who set up America fled the totalitarian regiemes in europe ruled by despots and in-bred royalty.
I see little difference between Americas establishment and the key point of argument in this fight. On the surface it might sound odd, but its correct.
51
I agree Kevin, confirmation bias is only part of the problem. Used by the lazy and also by those milking the system.
The real issue is, as you say, that the lazy, the connected and manipulative elements of society make real science and real enquiry almost impossible.
KK
41
The Royal Society ‘Nullius in Verba.’
41
The sceptic: “addito salis grano”
21
It is important to look at the overall evidence for warming causing coral bleaching. A recent paper, from January last year is the open access
Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene DOI: 10.1126/science.aan8048 . (Hughes et al 2018)
This tried to remove the observation bias of by looking at 100 locations around the world, 32 in Australasia. In the supplementary data, figure S4 is the results of testing the frequency of bleaching against global warming. For Australasia the R2 = 0.0001. For the West Atlantic (mostly the Caribbean) R2 = 0.0939, but the relationship is negative.
In a recent post I looked at other alleged examples from around the world supposedly of warming causing bleaching. They did not stack up. One extreme example is Sekisei Lagoon Okinawa, where up to 99% of the reef has disappeared. The Japanese Ministry of the environment blamed the degradation on
The problem of demonstrating an alternative case is that the academic consensus comes up with numerous spurious examples based on hearsay, then puts the onus outsiders to demonstrate it is wrong, in an environment of prejudiced mainstream media access.
61
Kevin do you give any credence to the idea that a drop in sea level during strong El Nino causes bleaching?
‘Prof Ridd also says the work of a US schoolteacher, who claims a drop in sea level caused by the El Nino phenomenon might have caused bleaching, should not be discounted.’
Townsville Bulletin
51
El Gordo,
The data does support coral bleaching events in the El Nino years.
Look at Hughes et al 2018, Supplementary materials Figure 2A. There are large increases in the cumulative number of bleaching events in the El Nino years of 1998, 2010 and 2016/7, particularly in Australasia. Note that the data is for 100 locations – Australasia 32, Indian Ocean/Middle East 24, Western Atlantic 22 & Pacific Ocean 22.
For West Atlantic, there are also a number of bleaching events in 1995 and 2005. Coincidentally these were years of high hurricane activity. Hurricane Andrew in 1995 was the last Cat 5 to make landfall in the USA. 2005 was the worst year on record in the area. If corals could get stressed by excess heat, could they also get stressed by getting battered by mighty storm?
Contradicting the El Nino cause is a claim of significant observed bleaching on the GBR in 2002. The Australian Institute of Marine science has a list of major Coral bleaching events.
In 2002 they thought there was some bleaching, so massive resources were poured into observing the bleaching. Again, observation bias plays a role.
61
‘If corals could get stressed by excess heat, could they also get stressed by getting battered by mighty storm?’
There is a PhD in that.
Thanks for all that, I’ll keep an open mind on the stress factors causing bleaching.
20
We are now seeing proof in a court of law how Universities of today are in fact against real scientific truth and instead are propagandists and charlatans, pure and simple. It would be proper for the government to suspend all funding to Universities until they can prove they can conduct real and unbiased scientific research. I won’t hold my breath.
112
Let’s put aside the academic freedom clause for a second, and just consider the code of conduct.
Does any employer, or any employment contract, have the power to curtail an employee’s freedom of speech in any way?
When you clock off, you clock off. One’s employer should have no power to dictate what an employee does in their own time.
91
?
The observation seems a bit disconnected.
31
Certainly they have no right to tell them not to discuss whatever with the wife or friends, or whoever they like, unless they have signed an “in confidence” agreement of some sort.
That is passed being RIDICULOUS.
60
In the court yesterday, Judge Vasta was scathing in his criticism of JCI in this matter. Murdoch for JCI was emphasising that the university had laid no charges against Ridd for breach of confidentiality with his wife.
Judge Vasta responded by saying that JCU had not even apologised to Ridd for denying him the right to discuss the fact that he had been charged with his wife for more than 3 weeks. He said this action was heavy handed, absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible.
I was waiting for the judge to tell Murdoch what he really thought.
20
When you work for someone you owe them some privacy on work matters. That’s an assumed contract.
When your employer later endorses deliberate falsification of results and interpretation, that initial contract is broken.
KK
31
A private employer does have the power to sack an employee for bad-mouthing the business. If someone in marketing, for instance, advised a potential customer that a competitor’s product was better normally that person would be sacked. This would certainly be a curtailment on freedom of speech, particularly if the claim was based in fact. But a University should not be promoting a particular ideology. Instead, at least in free countries, it should be promoting scientific understanding and challenges to the norms. If the case for climate change causing increased coral reef bleaching is fundamentally strong then academic competition from a flawed case disputing that case will lead to sharpening the case.
41
26 Mar: Breitbart: Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures
by T.D. Adler
(Disclosure: the author of this piece was paid in the past for edits on Wikipedia as part of several editing contests…
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.)
A report in Huffington Post (LINK) recently revealed the case of Wikipedia editor Ed Sussman, who was paid by media clients such as NBC and Axios to help diminish critical material (LINK). Paid editors operating in a similar manner to Sussman have worked on behalf of CNN contributor Hilary Rosen and the CEOs of Reddit and Intel, among other clients.
Other conduct by Sussman not covered by the Huffington Post shows him authoring fluff pieces for NBC executives and getting his proposed changes approved by another paid Wikipedia editor…
Wikipedia’s policies do not ban paid editors from approving the proposals of other paid editors provided they are not working for the same client. In a case last year, Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, akin to a Supreme Court, sanctioned two long-time editors after one had his paid edits approved by the other despite both working for the same paid editing firm. Neither were banned for these practices, not even from further paid editing.
Many Wikipedia editors are resistant to paid editing, but the practice is generally tolerated so long as editors disclose their affiliation and get their edits approved by other editors as Sussman and Beutler have done…READ ON
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/26/wikipedia-editors-paid-to-protect-political-tech-and-media-figures/
20
Looks like it’s going well for Dr Peter Ridd…. I was so worried that this would be a political kangaroo court where it wouldn’t matter what he said, he would be condemned. The sort of thing that happened to Andrew Bolt in 2010, where he had an ex Labor minister as his judge and an utterly hostile court.
looks like Judge Vasta was having none of it. Wants to see JCU address Dr Ridd’s criticism’s before entertaining anything about “Codes of conduct” and told them as much.
91
Great. Can you keep us up to date on how its going each day?
31
Yes please keep us aware! Happy that there seems to be a competent judge.
10
To quote The Australian’s ‘Higher Education’ section today in an article titled “James Cook University under fire for ‘silencing’ academic over reef”;
START ARTICLE QUOTATION – “A judge has blasted James Cook University for silencing, rather than debating, one of its professors who criticised the institution’s research into the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Sacked professor Peter Ridd, who was dismissed last year after publicly criticising lack of quality assurance processes on the university’s research and for discussing confidential disciplinary proceedings against him, said he had “no choice” but to make his concerns public.
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.” – END ARTICLE QUOTATION.
In light of the judge’s comments, perhaps JCU VC Sandra Harding should audit the ‘cognitive bias’ of JCU’s reef researchers and the millions of $$$$ they siphon annually from the Australian taxpayer. You know, the cognitive bias she references in her 2009 paper “The categorical generation of organizational inequality: A comparative test of Tilly’s durable inequality” by Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, Avent-Holt, Dustin, Zimmer, Catherine, and Harding, Sandra.
To quote Ms Harding’s paper – “The major social psychological theories of inequality – symbolic interactionism (Schwalbe et al., 2000), status expectations (Ridgeway, 1997), and cognitive bias (Allport, 1954, Tajfel, 1969) – all locate the mechanisms that create inequality in face-to-face interaction (see also Martin, 2003). To move beyond simply describing inequality to explaining the mechanisms that generate and allocate it, we must turn our theoretical and empirical lens to workplaces (and other organizational contexts) and the social relations within them.”
Indeed we should Ms Harding, indeed we should.
Ms Harding writings appear to advocate equity in the workplace and employment free from bullying and harassment, yet it is now alleged in the Australian Federal Circuit Court that the actions of Ms Harding’s JCU underlings are in direct contradiction to the spin from their leader. Shame on you JCU, shame.
20
Judge Vasta described the JCU actions as heavy handed, absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible. They are lucky he didn’t get really serious about it.
20