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

Busted: Reef fish aren’t bothered by “acidification” and James Cook Uni isn’t bothered by potential fraud.

“Clark et al. (2020) found 100% replication failure. None of the findings of the original eight studies were found to be correct.”

Scientists tried to repeat eight experiments that showed “acidification” would make reef fish get hyper, act like their predators smell nice, and generally swim in the wrong circles, behave weirdly and need therapy sessions. Turns out the fish will be OK, but James Cook Uni’s reputation may never recover. The original junk experiments and press releases came out of the coral reef centre at JCU.

This is the “replication crisis” Peter Ridd warned us about. He was fired from  JCU in 2018 after stating that work from JCU’s coral reef centre (ARCCoE)  was not trustworthy. He also helped expose manipulated photos of reef fish. Obviously this latest reef research shows he  was right to be concerned about quality assurance at JCU. One JCU researcher, Oona Lönnstedt, had already been caught fabricating data in Sweden, and yet JCU “investigated” and sacked Ridd faster than it investigated her suspicious lionfish shots. Indeed, two years on, JCU has not even officially appointed the committee to investigate her potentially fraudulent work. It seems JCU would rather employ untrustworthy scientists than honest ones.

Ridd won on every count in court against JCU last year, but they still want to waste millions in the high court defending their right to exile and punish a whistleblower for being non-collegial and writing a slightly satirical subject line: “for your amusement”.  This unpermitted behaviour is seemingly so much more important to JCU managers than employing people who do honest, useful scientific work. And who cares about the stupid fish and the fate of the dumb reef anyhow? They are just a fund-raising tool for a grants machine.   I guess JCU can’t maintain the abject fear among their staff, and get obedience to their own agenda if the dang staff say what they really think.

Think about how pointless the JCU appeal is — even if they were to win, they lose — they prove that they are not the kind of institute taxpayers should be funding.

JCU management have learnt nothing. Since losing the case JCU has changed its employment contracts, not to give their academics the unequivocal right to speak freely, but to make sure they can’t. Enough is enough — all universities need to guarantee free speech in employment contracts or no more government funds.

Every JCU employee’s work is tainted by this. Even the honest ones. We will never know what any JCU researchers really believe, or which results were filed in the bin, no matter what they say, because we know employees of JCU have to hide unfashionable opinions. Their quality assurance is terminally flawed. This makes the entire institution useless as a research body, and with standards so low, also useless for teaching. The government could fix this entire embarrassing debacle in five minutes. They just need to withhold JCU funding til the uni gets new management, investigates potential fraud, stops wasting funds in legal battles, and demonstrate that they support free speech — rehire Ridd, sack the VC Sandra Harding AO who earnt $975,000 in 2018, and enshrine free speech in employment contracts. It could all be fixed in time before the academic year starts.

Environmentalists should be defending Ridd. Junk science hurts the reef. The nation could waste money giving the fish counseling instead of solving actual issues that may threaten the reef.

And the problem is bigger than just JCU. As Ridd points out “Such replication studies have been opposed by all the major GBR (Great Barrier Reef) science institutions.” None of these institutions want the science checked. 

It’s also proof that sacred “peer review” is as meaningless as a pal review by two anonymous people obviously would be.

JCU is the text-book example of what happens when government funding strangles science. The people in charge of JCU’s “science” department — deciding what “the consensus will be” are the administrators, not the academics.

This is not a one off. JCU has a pattern of evicting, blackbanning, and ousting people who disagree with the bureaucrats pet fashions (vale, Bob Carter!). In this culture, more funding means more strangling. So just stop.

 

____________________

Peter Ridd: Scientific Misconduct At James Cook University Confirms My Worst Fears

Global Warming Policy Foundation

Seven scientists expose massive scientific incompetence –  or worse – at James Cook University

All the erroneous studies were done by scientists from James Cook Universities highly prestigious Coral Reef Centre. They were published in high profile journals, and attracted considerable media attention.

The major findings of the original studies that were found to be wrong were that high CO2 concentrations cause small reef fish to

  • lose their ability to smell predators, and can even become attracted towards the scent of predators,
  • become hyper-active,
  • loose their tendency to automatically swim either left or right, and,
  • have impaired vision.

This is the second time these 7 authors have got together to reveal a major scientific scandal. They were the whistle blowers of the infamous Lonnstedt scientific fraud in 2018. Lonnstedt, originally a PhD student at JCU, is also one of the scientists involved with these latest erroneous studies. She was found guilty of fabricating data in Sweden.

JCU has failed to properly investigate possible scientific fraud by Lonnstedt. Government funding agencies should insist that the highest responsible officer at JCU be sacked to send a message that institutions must take fraud seriously and not try to cover it up.

Failure to investigate fraud when there is a strong prime facie case that it has occurred is a far greater crime than fraud itself. It is a failure at the highest levels of an institution.

It demonstrates that fraud will be tolerated at James Cook University.  – Peter Ridd

Peter Ridd’s full comments on the Clark et al paper.

The Peter Ridd story:

For people interested in Ocean Acidification see this section 5.5 from page 522 of the comprehensive Climate Change Reconsidered Report by Heartland.

REFERENCE

Clark, T.D., Raby, G.D., Roche, D.G. et al. Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes. Nature (2020) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1903-y

h/t Willie Soon, Peter Ridd, George.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (121 votes cast)
Busted: Reef fish aren't bothered by "acidification" and James Cook Uni isn't bothered by potential fraud. , 9.3 out of 10 based on 121 ratings

158 comments to Busted: Reef fish aren’t bothered by “acidification” and James Cook Uni isn’t bothered by potential fraud.

  • #
    Geoff

    Government funded entities [allegedly] commit fraud to get government funding. Who’d have thought?

    Do they have a choice?

    Oblivion or fraud.

    They must lie to get funding. That is how the system is set up.

    The lies grow as the size of the government grows.

    420

    • #
      Dennis

      I trust that people directly concerned and who have the background knowledge have advised the Commonwealth Govrnment?

      And the Commonwealth Government needs another reminder about Bureau of Meteoroly manipulation of data.

      Not good enough, this is taxpayer’s monies being squandered.

      310

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Bureau of Misinformation =BOM

        190

      • #

        It is obvious by the staggering waste of the $400 million Turnbull GBR mates fund, never accounted for, that no government level cares a fig about responsibility. Until senior public service and academic jobs are on the line, this won’t change. They think they are invincible, and so far they are correct. We waste time thinking we need better arguments, but we need a better strategy.

        260

        • #
          Peter

          I agree. If the government does not call a royal commission which includes CO2 within its scope and core objectives, after this man made environmental disaster then they never will.

          A possible avenue is calling a class action against the government, departments, ministers, public servants etc.

          The only way any of this is going to going to get sorted now is in courts , the media has failed, the parliaments have failed, our institutions have failed, the only place left is the courts.

          It is the only way to bring anyone to account.

          20

          • #

            To quote Yoda… there is another Skywalker

            There is a risk with a Royal Commission that it becomes another whitewash vehicle.

            The last and always powerful tool any truthteller has is satire. Cartoons, mockery and humor. They have no defence…

            As long as we have free speech we will win. That’s why we have to fight for free speech before anything else and why they will do everything they can to take that speech away.

            110

            • #
              Peter

              I understand the risk of the Royal Commission being rigged in its terms of reference, and or an embedded bias of the commission itself. However the game that has been played over the last 20 years via the media and the parliaments and the various actors has delivered nothing but waste, confusion, and lies. I appreciate the value of free speech, and the value of humour, but like many i am over it, and would relish the opportunity, for the arguments to be contested in court.

              10

              • #

                And indeed so would I. But in the end, for all the pain of Michael Mann case, he’s still treated like an honest player and a guru after all the years of hiding his data. Discovery discovered nothing. Mann’s backers lost some money, but Mann gained seven years or so of cover thanks to the legal system, and Steyn got seven years of stress. Cheap for the establishment at twice the price.

                All it takes is someone to lean on Morrison to do a half baked Royal Commission and nothing will be discovered and indeed it will turn into a tool of the enemy.

                The only court we can win in is the court of public opinion. 99% of the times we pin our hopes on anything “official” it works for officials, not freemen.

                60

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Jo, that’s an interesting point of view.

                KK

                00

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            I agree Peter.

            The failure to clear buildup of undergrowth from bush, forests and farming/residential areas is criminal and must be punished.

            Substitution of wishful thinking for hard won practical understanding over centuries is arrogance in the extreme.

            And don’t mention the nonsense about human origin CO2, what a scientific joke.

            KK

            10

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              It’s not the fuel in the National Parks that burns down houses. That problem belongs to the National Parks.

              it’s the fuel within 100m, or even 50 m of the houses that burns down houses. Where that fuel is in the National Parks, there needs to be a new approach.

              10

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Dennis,

        I wrote to the Minister months ago on the Professor Ridd issue, with a cc to my local MP and others.

        I received a response from a Canberra bureaucrat assuring me that the universities have this issue in hand. And, the bureaucrat could not comment about Professor Ridd because it would be Sub judice.

        The Minister never saw my letter and probably never saw the bureaucrat’s response. That’s yet another example of ministerial negligence. They don’t give a tinker’s damn.

        I think I might write again, and again, and again. Until such time as they declare me a vexatious correspondent. :-)

        230

        • #
          AndyG55

          Point out to them that JCU is using PUBLIC money for a vexation vendetta.

          That is money being siphoned away from proper education and research purposes.

          210

        • #
          Robert Swan

          The minister is not really obliged to deal with you. You might get a better response writing to your MP who can forward your letter to the minister and the minister should answer that. And you can expect a letter back — at least from your representative.

          Once upon a time this worked pretty well. Unfortunately they now have all their stock letters ready to hand.

          As for sub judice, that’s just a pathetic excuse. Ridd has already been found to be in the right and the appeal is not in play. What’s more, you want JCU to withdraw their appeal, so any useful ministerial action has to come before the appeal is decided.

          70

    • #
      Dennis

      Any government that dares to question the climate change hoax is attacked by the IPCC and fellow travellers.

      280

    • #
      sophocles

      JCU is the Warning Label

      It’s not a University but a Uni-Farce-ity.

      Potential Students need to be warnied that JCU could be bad for their Academic Health.

      130

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    ” … all universities need to guarantee free speech in employment contracts or no more government funds.”

    Nice aspiration, but we’re gonna need a government that doesn’t perpetuate the UN doomsday global warming scam …

    “Following weeks of growing calls for more action to address climate change global warming, Mr Morrison stated that [global warming] was a contributing factor to the bushfires that have plagued the nation for months.

    “We also know that there are many contributing factors that relate to these fires.
    The drought is obviously one, and the dryness of the bush is the biggest factor,” he said.
    “And we all know … that [global warming], along with many other factors, contribute to what is occurring today.”

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/scott-morrison-says-climate-change-was-a-contributing-factor-to-bushfires/news-story/25d6f61d0db5538bbbdeac745d107bc9

    170

  • #
    Deplorable Lord Kek

    Mr Morrison stated that [global warming] was a contributing factor to the bushfires that have plagued the nation for months.

    And of course, ‘global warming’ (of the man made kind) is just an unproven hypothesis, so we know nothing of the sort.

    390

    • #
      Dennis

      I have heard a number of people claim that global warming is a contributing factor, while it does annoy me greatly, elected by voters cabinet ministers in government rely on the permanent government public service employees for advice, and obviously the ministers are being misled.

      Recently ion Sky News, Inside The News hosted by Chris Smith, a guest was interviewed about bushfires and the impact of climate change, a Dr.Price from the University of Wollongong I recall. He told Smith that there is apparently a one degree warming to date. When pushed Price reluctantly estimated that the impact would be about a 20 per cent
      bushfire season factor.

      We all know from reading articles here and from other sources that climate weather data is unreliable, there are many examples of published data not matching historic records data, that weather stations have been placed in or near heat sinks and temperature readings not recorded accurately resulting in a false warming trend. And more deceptive conduct.

      So my point is that the politicians today have to deal with doctored record data of decades past, universities that provide unreliable information, BoM providing unreliable information, etc. Take pity on the politicians, they are delierately misled, a minority apparently are not.

      But politicians are also caught in a public perception political game, the Opposition right now challenging the Prime Minister to do more about climate change (hoax).

      Leftist activists protesting in the streets with ABC/MSM publicity.

      Unions making outrageous claims that indicate wrongly that the Federal Government is responsible for bushfires and fire fighting, that is a State-Territory responsibility and handled by State Emergency Services.

      320

      • #
        Deplorable Lord Kek

        one degree warming to date. When pushed Price reluctantly estimated that the impact would be about a 20 per cent

        But even if we accept that as accurate it says nothing about the cause of the warming.

        There is just an assumption that it is co2 (eg. they cannot find the ‘hotspot’ and the lower troposphere warms slower than the surface, contrary to what is pre3dicted, uh, I mean projected).

        And how do you get from 1 degree of warming to a 20% impact on bushfires? (over what time frame?)

        Surely the IOD is more pertinent here: oh, but ‘climate change’ makes the IOD worse!, and so round in circles we go.

        But politicians are also caught in a public perception political game,

        Oh, yes, but the game here is to get the liberal party to commit to an agenda that would be electoral suicide.

        Those calling on Morrison to ‘do something’ would never vote for him.

        240

  • #
    kevin george

    Hoaxsterism and fraudology 101.

    70

  • #
    David Maddison

    How is it possible to be a supposed “scientist” and not understand the basics of the scientific method such as reproducibility of results? Or even to record data appropriately? This is very basic stuff.

    Anything else is just fiction or belongs in The Journal of Irrepoducible Results.

    340

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Interestingly – the paper refers to a model. I’m sure that all models will now be rehabilitated since this one is supported by the deniers on the right.

    250

    • #
      David Maddison

      What is a “denier” Peter? Science isn’t about belief, denial or opinion but verifiable and repeatable FACTS.

      Unlike Leftism, real science as opposed to the anthropogenic global warming fiction, doesn’t rely on Orwell’s “1984″ as it’s reference book.

      410

    • #
      AndyG55

      Except the models were built using ACTUALLY REAL DATA and OBSERVATION.

      “we additionally show”

      You FAIL basic comprehension, yet again

      You FAIL science… yet again.

      281

    • #
      el gordo

      I don’t see ‘model’ mentioned, help me out.

      The importance of this revelation is that JCU wannabes publish in respected journals and their work cannot be replicated. Massive fail.

      Do you still believe warm water bleaches coral?

      180

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        From the article
        “Using data simulations, we additionally show that the large effect sizes and small within-group variances that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. “

        128

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          So the original authors have failed peer review.

          210

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            I don’t think so, G3. Using a model, the results of the first paper have been questioned – this is standard, and is part of the hypothesis testing that at the heart of the scientific method. You publish, and wait for attempts to tear it apart. That is the whole reason for publication.

            128

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘You publish, and wait for attempts to tear it apart. That is the whole reason for publication.’

              That is how it once was, back in the day before grant money corrupted peer review.

              220

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Oh for god’s sake, EG, there has always been grant money, there has always been deceptions (William McBride is an australian example) – The value of a paper is how often it is referenced in succeeding work (use google scholar to see what I mean.

                221

              • #
                AndyG55

                McBride was accused of [quotes from judge]..

                ‘deliberately selecting and culling data’

                OOOPS… that means whole AGW scam is in deep, deep trouble, doesn’t it.

                ‘a sorry saga’ which should have been avoided

                AGW to a tee !!

                230

              • #
                Mark D.

                OH FOR GODS sake! If a paper is proven wrong years after it was published and had been referenced many times in other papers, WHAT body removes all the wrong science and edits the referring papers?

                Right. It almost never happens. Wrong science left to fester and rot and you hanging in there ready to support wrong science.

                50

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Using a model,”

              Again with the total lack of comprehension of basic literature.

              The model simulation was done after the main replication studies had shown the original papers were incorrect.

              So funny, and ‘you’, that you can’t even get the most basic understanding of the study correct.

              “The value of a paper is how often it is referenced in succeeding work”

              LOL… Again , a total lack of comprehension of science..

              We have certainly come to expect that from you

              You meant the “virtue-seeking of a paper”, didn’t you.

              .

              160

            • #
              AndyG55

              ” and wait for attempts to tear it apart.”

              and those original JCU have been absolutely DESTROYED.. so sad. ;-)

              110

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Peter Fitzroy:

              Whether they used a model or not isn’t the question. That they were unable to replicate the results of 8 reports, and that one of the authors has already been found guilty of academic fraud, the question is “WHY are you trying to pretend that the original papers are believable?”

              110

    • #
      Deplorable Lord Kek

      Interestingly – the paper refers to a model. I’m sure that all models will now be rehabilitated since this one is supported by the deniers on the right.

      Actually, it is not ‘models’ in general that are derided; only GIGO models.

      Garbage in, garbage out.

      60

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Exactly, but who decides? You blindly accept one model, and not another, and you do not publish any methodology, just make stupid assertions

        127

        • #
          el gordo

          The original authors of those papers need to defend their reputations, otherwise I’ll be going with the new broom.

          130

        • #
          Deplorable Lord Kek

          Qué?

          This explains the distinction:

          Donald Kasper
          December 2, 2018 at 2:51 pm

          There are two types of science models, weak models and strong models. A strong model explains all of the observable evidence. Its correlation is strong which allows us to use it for predictive purposes. Weak models explain bits and pieces of the data, but far from all of it. The authors ignore the counter evidence, claim it is noise, or not important. These models have no predictive value. Most science models in all disciplines are weak models. Our understanding is incomplete, so the models predict a fraction of what is going on.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/02/dr-willie-soon-versus-the-climate-apocalypse/

          160

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Im sorry – self serving words don’t make a hill of beans in science. Just ask Geneticists who study one tiny bit of a mitochondria if they agree with that. Of course a model is incomplete, it is a scaffold to delineate the problem. But the point remains, you are accepting one model, and not another, but you won’t tell me why.

            124

            • #
              Deplorable Lord Kek

              Of course a model is incomplete

              No, a weak model is incomplete.

              As such it has “no predictive value”. (How could an incomplete model accurately predict anything except by dumb luck?)

              But, contrary to your admission of a model being incomplete – and so logically unable to accurately predict anything – you accept weak models as being able to accurately predict 20, 50, 100, 200… years into the future… and that these predictions are grounds for the radical transformation of society!!!

              150

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Don’t put words in my mouth, the arguments is about acceptance of one model, and the rejections of all the others. Standard denialism, as is the last post of yours.

                222

              • #
                Deplorable Lord Kek

                Don’t put words in my mouth.

                uh, you are he one who accepted that models are incomplete.

                Logically, an incomplete model cannot make accurate predictions.

                All I have done is draw out the implications of your own stated position.

                the arguments is about acceptance of one model, and the rejections of all the others.

                I provided the relevant distinction between weak and strong models.

                that is a rational criterion for distinguishing between predictive and non-predictive models, and has nothing to do with “acceptance of one model, and the rejections of all the others” (it is a general criterion).

                Standard denialism, as is the last post of yours

                And then onto the name calling.

                As we are in a polite forum, I’ll leave that to you.

                160

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Don’t put words in my mouth”

                Not going near the sewer.

                90

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                so who decides if a model is’ weak’ – I’m guessing it is you

                119

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                For gods sake, if you knew anything about modelling you would not be making such facile comments

                121

              • #
                AndyG55

                It is blatantly obvious that it is YOU that is clueless about computer modelling

                Everything you say shows that to be the case.

                You have zero comprehension about validation,

                You can’t tell a speculative supposition based model from an empirical model.

                You think climate models are the same as engineering models

                You really are just totally and irredeemably clueless.

                170

              • #
                Deplorable Lord Kek

                so who decides if a model is’ weak’ – I’m guessing it is you

                Nope.

                e.g.

                “The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

                It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.”

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/02/dr-willie-soon-versus-the-climate-apocalypse/

                For gods sake, if you knew anything about modelling you would not be making such facile comments

                If you knew anything about logic or science or modelling you would not be claiming you can make an accurate prediction from incomplete data.

                180

              • #
                Deplorable Lord Kek

                *correction: an accurate prediction from an incomplete model: “Weak models explain bits and pieces of the data, but far from all of it. The authors ignore the counter evidence, claim it is noise, or not important. These models have no predictive value”

                110

              • #
                AndyG55

                “who decides if a model is’ weak’ ”

                A new word for you, fits

                VALIDATION

                If you ever learn the basics of real science, you may just come to grips with the concept….

                … or not.

                150

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                A model is not only weak but useless unless it has been validated against reality. Will someone please list for me just one model that has been able to accurately predict what happened to temperature, weather or climate say 10 years in the future, just 10 years.

                If someone can name the model and show the data that validated it for just 10 years into the future I’ll apologize for making this demand and admit my ignorance.

                I’ll bet no one will take me on.

                60

            • #
              Furiously curious

              For god’s sake. Get an aquarium, add water, fish, and . CO2, an see if the fish go loopy. Jees, computer models. And you dont even have to do that. Supposedly the CO2 levels indoors are up in the thousnds of parts per million. So every one who has an indoor aquarium should be observing, weird fish behavior, right?

              180

              • #
                AndyG55

                Maybe the bedroom 1000-2000ppm CO2 that P.Fits wakes up in,

                … are what is causing his extremely aberrant and dysfunctional pattern of behaviour.

                150

            • #
              Furiously curious

              For god’s sake. Get an aquarium, add water, fish, and . CO2, an see if the fish go loopy. Jees, computer models. And you dont even have to do that. Supposedly the CO2 levels indoors are up in the thousnds of parts per million. And the water is going to absorb the CO, so every one who has an indoor aquarium should be observing, weird fish behavior, right?

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              ” self serving words don’t make a hill of beans in science”

              But its all you have, isn’t it.

              You are certainly totally lacking in anything remotely scientific.

              You seem to have a totally warped and distorted view of what “science” actually is.

              Its quite BIZARRE, to say the least.

              100

            • #
              AndyG55

              “you are accepting one model, and not another,”

              Except the models were built using ACTUALLY REAL DATA and OBSERVATION.

              The model simulation is an addition to the main paper.

              “we additionally show”

              You FAIL basic comprehension, AS ALWAYS

              You FAIL science… AS ALWAYS.

              90

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Fitz says. “You blindly accept one model, and not another, and you do not publish any methodology, just make stupid assertions” .

          Can I just say that describes you to a tee!

          130

          • #
            el gordo

            Fitz also said … ‘so who decides if a model is weak’.

            We know that the Hiatus in world temperatures disproves CAGW, the models are flawed, yet we are ignored. Its a bit like astrology, just ignore the stuff that doesn’t work.

            We need more examples of bad science at JCU, especially into the cause of coral bleaching.

            70

        • #
          Fred Streeter

          The Climate Models fail miserably.

          There is no “model” in this paper, merely a statistical method, irrelevant to the paper’s findings.

          You will note the authors call for further, more extensive, studies be undertaken to confirm or correct these findings.

          They also state that, although end of century increased acidity from increased CO2 may not affect the fish, the concomitant warming of oceans by this cause may well do so, and this, too, should be further studied.

          What a bunch of “Deniers”.

          20

    • #
      AndyG55

      ” deniers”

      Come on, please tell us what we “deny” that you can produce actual verifiable scientific proof for.

      There is nothing REAL to deny.

      Calling us “deniers” for saying we don’t believe in your fantasies is just arrant stupidity.

      90

    • #
      R.B.

      Models are quantification of an argument. Its alarmists who treat it as divining. Stop confusing us having to remind the brainwashed of this with blasphemy.

      It like the stupidity of needing to believe in climate change due to human emissions or believe the climate never changes. Just stupid.

      10

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    GREAT!

    Interesting that Peter Ridd posted yesterday at GPWF in the UK but not yet (that I can find) in The Australian newspaper.

    * Ridicule of JCU from UK may have greater impact here at; a) JCU administration, b) The Australian Research Council and their so-called Centres of Excellence, c) Pollies, d) other GBR catastrophists, notably AIMS and GBRMPA, support in court against JCU’s pending appeal?

    * Interesting too that a non-replication paper (in a big way) was published in Nature (8 Jan).

    190

  • #
    Chris

    Who would want a degree from JCU hanging on their wall? Students, staff and alumni are all tainted.

    250

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Peter Ridd , one of the few honest and brave enough to speak out against faux science threatens to pull the plug on the globull warming bottomless trough feeders .
    He must be silenced and money is no object neither is the truth .

    170

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Oh – and a reference to the previously tobacco funded, and now coal funded ‘Heartland Institute’ – best laugh of the day right there.

    035

    • #

      And a total ad hom from a man who can’t find any flaws in the Heartland work.

      340

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Is that a sore point with you? That fact that all your sources are tainted, in exactly the same way you assert for real climate science.

        I’m just pointing out a fact

        126

        • #
          AndyG55

          Only taint around here is you.

          You know you cannot combat anything with science, so you go down the childish smearing route.

          You have ZERO evidence of any tainted science from Heartland or anywhere else receiving realist funding, just like you have zero empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

          So no, you are NOT pointing out a fact, you are pointing out your fantasies.

          Plenty of evidence of corrupt or highly tainted science from the AGW operatives though.

          Take most of JCU for a start. !

          170

          • #
            Another Ian

            I see what you did there

            40

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate change, including Heartland. Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.
            The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[4]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters. The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link…between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health.”[59] The Institute opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments.

            As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.The St. Petersburg Times described the Institute as “particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart.” Heartland has stated that its authors were not “paid to defend Wal-Mart” and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the approximately $300,000 received from the Walton Family Foundation.

            In 2010, MediaTransparency said that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund, granted $13.5 million to the Institute.In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was “$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade”

            They are bought and paid for, but not by Greenpeace
            Denialists will never admit that.

            014

            • #
              jack

              Peter, in a way I am glad for your input on this site.
              You are like a reality TV interlude between watching two documentaries.
              Ridicules, but in small doses, entertaining.
              The last rant was a bit long, try to summarize more.

              110

            • #
              AndyG55

              Can’t argue the SCIENCE, hey Peter.!

              Cut and paste from somewhere else was it !

              These are piddling amounts compared to the funds to the AGW scam.

              All the funding from the renewable cartel has no effect on bad AGW non-science, right.

              Again, please tell us what we DENY that you can provide verifiable empirical science for.

              Your abyss is getting deeper and deeper.

              80

            • #
              AndyG55

              “scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health”

              The scientific evidence for passive smoking was, and still is, very weak..

              I know you have great difficulty when people argue using actual science.

              But you have no issue with far-left billionaires funding AGW scientific lies, do you.

              70

            • #
              AndyG55

              And no, nobody has any problem admitting that there is a relative pittance of conservative funding available.

              Much as you hate the idea, conservatives are allowed to fund research, y’know.

              70

            • #
              WXcycles

              Here’s the topic Peter Fitzgerald.

              Full Text:

              Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
              https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/10-17-2013_ccr-ii_entire_book.pdf

              If you find a problem with their discussion or conclusions after a month reading and digesting it, feel free to attempt to display your greater mastery.

              10

            • #

              Pete
              I am dismayed that whenever John Hewson in particular is interviewed on renewable energy we NEVER EVER hear of his renewable interests. In Financial markets there are always disclaimers about whether people own shares in companies so people know where they are coming from. But in climate never happens – which is disgusting.

              There are others like Macquarie Group who have large interests here, again, who never disclose these when interviewed.

              10

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          PF:

          So we can ignore Al Gore whose family wealth came from tobacco and oil?

          80

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Only thing your doing Fitz is baiting and probably the wrong person .

          60

        • #
          Fred Streeter

          And yet you read the blog and post here!

          “He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith;”
          Ecclesiasticus 13:1
          King James Version (KJV)

          20

          • #
            AndyG55

            Not sure how long he has been posting here..

            But the only thing he has managed is to make a total mockery of himself and his obvious lack of basic education.

            He has helped us show just how EMPTY the arguments for AGW and warming by human CO2 really are.

            He is actually a very good tool in our fight against the marxist/globalist AGW agenda,

            … but is too dumb to realise it.

            20

    • #
      AndyG55

      And what about the rubbish non-science from the renewable energy funded operatives that you always reference?

      Wake up. !!

      Its not the funding that matters.. its the SCIENCE

      And so far you are nothing but a black-hole.

      140

    • #
      R.B.

      A Nature article. Passed peer-review. Isn’t this your sole criteria for vera CV it?

      10

  • #
    Mug Punter

    I will be insisting my local member (Josh F) take action against the Harding House of Horrors.

    50

  • #
    yarpos

    I have an aquaintance who is quite proud his daughter is going to JCU. Mind you he also believes the reef will dissapear in 10-20 years and the oceans are becoming boiling acid.

    120

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Questions:
      Does he want his daughter to swim in that boiling acid?
      How much insurance has he taken out on her?

      50

  • #
    Furiously curious

    Consensus science.
    Bringing up the Pope vs Galileo establishment consensus, to counter the 97% climate scientist consensus, is OK, but there is a much closer consensus’, where the scientific and medical establishment has been made to look inept, craven, negligent, lazy, prone to fads, for 65 of the last 70 years. The Fat/Sugar Debacle ! A certain Dr Ancel Keys managed to convince 99.999% of the scientific, academic, medical, and nutrition establishment, with dodgy figures, errors of omission, and marketing, that fat caused fat, and we should remove it from our diets. Then even in the face of total failure – they sat there and handed out diets, that caused people to become obese in front of their eyes, and there was a massive explosion in diabetes. This was still the dogma, until maybe 5 years ago. It’s still pretty strong. For 60 years there was an almost total lack of research into the basis of the theory, and anyone who came up with contrary findings was swept aside, as a massive, low fat food industry was created. It took an overweight journalist to research what was going on, and finally publish, what became, a best-selling book, explaining why the standard dogma was all wrong. And I still haven’t noticed anyone from these expert groups coming out with a mea culpa, or going head to head with the still very pervasive low fat/high sugar industry. They’re keeping their head down, saying, ‘we’re moving on, just stay away from sugar, I’m an expert. Nothing to see here.’
    Welcome to consensus science!

    And then there are your neighbours, the stomach ulcer guys, who had to beat their heads against the doors of the medical and scientific establishments, to get their anti-bacteria results even looked at. And really that was very simple to prove – take some antibiotics, and boom, years of suffering are gone. But the theory that it had a physical or stress cause, was all pervasive.

    So they would saying, especially in the Fat/Sugar case, that guy should have been de platformed, and not allowed to be heard. We have a 99.9999% consensus, and we’re the experts.

    And then there is the Oxycontin disaster in the US. How much research into the drug was the medical establishment willing to do, when their greed was energetically stirred? The consensus was, ‘it’s fine.’

    I’d say that was another case of dumb consensus.

    150

    • #
      Deano

      The media also can’t seem to get simple facts from scientific releases right. Only today I heard news reports that anti-hypertensive medication can both increase AND decrease the chances of developing dementia. Obviously, this is the fault of the near scientifically illiterate traditional media but it reaches far more people than carefully edited science publications.

      00

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    [Corrupt activity] is being perpetrated right under our noses in many facets of life. That includes the scientific community. The thing I still can’t figure out is how can we expose it and have those responsible put behind bars? Having the evidence apparently isn’t enough, which shows how our system of justice is broken.

    10

  • #
    Muzza

    Joanne, you forgot to mention what the scientists behind this research had to say about the bigger picture. You can’t just ‘cherry pick’ the science without accepting the whole picture. This is what the authors of the report said:

    We’re not saying that climate change is not a problem — far from it,” added Roche, her husband, a research associate at UdeM. “Our point is that replication studies are very important, just as are ocean acidification and global warming generally.”
    Clark agreed.
    “The negative effects of CO2 emissions are well established, with global warming already having devastating effects on coral reef ecosystems around the world. Among other things, more frequent storms and coral bleaching during heatwaves is causing severe habitat loss for fish,” he said.
    “So, despite our new results, coral reefs and their fish communities remain in grave danger because of increasing atmospheric CO2.”
    Now, instead of concentrating on how fish behaviour is affected by ocean acidification, scientists would do better to focus their attention “on others aspects of climate change that are more in need of research,” such as infectious disease risk, habitat destruction, and decreased oxygen levels in water, said Binning, holder of a Canada Research Chair on Eco-Evolution and Host-Parasite Interactions.

    27

    • #

      Muzza, nothing in their paper supported their blank belief in CAGW. They probably had to say it to get published. Whatever.

      Even if they believe it, there’s no analysis nor data presented of upper tropospheric water vapor or anything about model validation. So they are just repeating the mantra.

      190

      • #
        Muzza

        No, their comments were made after the paper was published. Their study focused on the narrow subject of acidification and the response of tropical fish. At no time did it address ‘CAGW’. Making a an illusory leap from the narrow subject addressed in the paper to the issue of climate change is unsupported and wholly unscientific. With respect, I have the means to speak to the authors in a public forum, and will discuss your conclusions with them directly. I will forward you a link to that discussion once completed.

        24

    • #
      AndyG55

      It doesn’t matter what they say about the bigger picture.

      Unproven comments about CAGW should not be in he paper.

      Warming effects of CO2 have not been scientifically proven anywhere.

      Feel free to produce such proof.

      51

  • #
    Bengt Abelsson

    Perhaps not entirely out of topic, you may forgive a poor Swede.

    I stubled upon a for me quite new word, ultracrepidarian.

    Could I beg for an explanation Of that?

    30

  • #
    AndyG55

    One thing for certain,

    The very fact that this paper made it through to publication would tell you it got through a severe PEER-review as opposed to a simple PAL-review a pro-AGW paper would always get.

    80

  • #
    EverGleam

    Time for a Royal Commission into academia. JCU is a good place to start, followed by the Sydney Uni and then the ANU.

    130

  • #

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7NJ9ylAhos
    ..
    If fake news you like
    if low bars you like
    if fake scares you like
    if bare lies you like
    why nobody will oppose…

    80

  • #
    • #
      jack

      :
      1975
      No Internet,
      No Social Media,
      No Mobile Phones,
      No Environmental agenda,
      No disaster.
      The good old days.

      100

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      Thanks DLK
      I have been very interested in researching Dr Roy Spencer the past few days since i became aware of him a few days ago. A treasure.

      50

  • #
    TdeF

    And Malcolm and Lucy’s special $444Million to their friends without even applying or review is to do what exactly? Perpetuate the fraud? More money means more li*s.

    JCU needs a new broom. A new board, a new Chancellor and especially a new Vice Chancellor. At a salary of $20,000 a week to do what exactly? Persecute people who dare question their fake science?

    70

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Einstein once said”only two things are infinite, the universe and stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe” This seems to apply to this JCU management.

      20

  • #
    DaveR

    On the related topic, if JCU appeal the Ridd payout (in May?) then P Ridd should apply to have his payout award increased, given that any JCU defense of their research integrity and their employment conduct is laughable, and any appeal is simply designed to frustrate Ridd further.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      What is difficult to understand is board approval. The clearly vindictive vice chancellor has been found to have had no legal basis to have fired Peter Ridd and spent over a million on trying to break him financially and personally, but now has approval to spend more millions of our money trying to cover it up. Why? How is this even possible?

      120

  • #
    Deano

    One problem with peer review can be finding available reviewers with sufficient understanding of the subject. However, if an experiment cannot be replicated by scientists and their technicians following the set up and procedure described in the paper, then it looks fishy!

    Modern science is unfortunately now a business with the whims of ‘customers’ to satisfy.

    40

  • #
    EJW

    Sadly, the corrupt university systems of circular pal review / replication failure / honourable criticism suppression is happening globally. In British Columbia Canada this is our version.

    https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-thompson-rivers-university-administrators-fiddling-while-their-school-burns

    If you are interested in our local downfall, this search opens the door a bit.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vancouver+sun+thompson+university&t=ffab&ia=web

    20

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    I just did a quick read of thirty or 40 synopsis of coral growing, propogation, and restoration projects at Mote Marine Lab in Sarasota
    Florida and University of South Florida School of Marine Biology.
    Virtually all have a boilerplate reference in paragraph 1 suggesting the stress is due in part to
    “temperature rise due to global warming”.
    None had a CO2 factor, warming, measurement , or second reference anywhere in the paper-
    these were mostly Masters & PhD Thesis.
    So the religion has taken hold, but in some quarters in this secular world, my be getting ritual homage without
    adherance.

    Florida and its institutions presided over generations of overfishing and pollution that severly damaged the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem,
    and has spent the last couple restoring and rebuilding with a range of targets from the West Indian Manatee tot he the Shrimp & oyster population
    to the snook and Tarpon fisheries to our coral reefs.

    The reefs here are small and uninteresting if one is using the GBR as a standard, but essential to the ecosystem. Recently a few coral species have been propogated in the lab
    and re-introduced to the wild reef with success.

    You can get grants and excitement by successfully doing this; if the project takes money from the 2000th failed global warming model all the better.

    In the real world of this research, it seem that cold spells, and cold water incursions from storm driven currents, are more of a concern than warming.
    Animals in the land and sea come to Florida in the winter for the same reason, to get warm.

    All of which is a very long way of confirming what Jo says above…that we have to discriminate between a ritualistic nod to climate change required by a stupid
    culture and the rantings of a true believer.

    PS. Peter F. Some people one shouldn’t defend. It’s not a good look. There are arguments to be made for a fair number of things one can do for the environment.
    Many do in fact reverse some very bad things we did to the environment; things where the harm, the cause, and the cure can be measured.
    We do things like protecting the Manatee with no-wake zones and marine enforcement, or prohibiting homeowners from spreading many things upon their lawns,
    because the science is clear enough to work across the political spectrum, and the topic, issue, and remedy can be clearly defined and measured.
    You seem bright enough to evaluate individual items outside the milieu of CAGW religion. Its a pity you seem unwilling to.

    Ya’ll are talking about experiments involving little fish. We’ve done a lot of experiments on fish, fish populations, fish stresses, and the people doing it have been
    held accountable for the results. Your crazy reef fish folks get no respect at our local turtle & coral research center, one of those where successful lab propogation has taken place.

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      In California the boilerplate is even worse, just a plain old blind stumble to out do the other guy for recognition. Almost anything goes.

      We’re expected to lose a eat in the House of Representatives because so many have left California, 250,000 last year alone.

      40

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        That’s a lot of people voting with their feet Roy.

        Amazing.

        It prompts me to wonder about movements within Australia where political reality has impacted places like Victoria and South Australia.

        KK

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Just to keep it honest I should add that the 250,000 figure has not been verified yet.

        The 2020 census later this year will be as accurate as it’s possible to get,

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    James Cook University can’t seem to stay honest. They must be accredited by some association of colleges and universities. Are there no consequences anymore? Have they all given up on basic integrity and honesty?

    Never minf, I know what the answer is. :-(

    40

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      Thank goodness james Cook University is not a single person, the students for example…

      Off topic.
      Tonight while looking at the question of Xanthorrhoea minor, this australian grass tree puts a hell of a lot of energy into staying underground. The Xanthorrhoea (grass tree) of northern drier parts of Australia grows its trunk above ground level and is instantly recognizable. I suppose that if fires are very hot, the trunk is better off below ground level as they can be in the southern parts of Australia in general. Conversely, the xanthorrhoea of the north can readily survive a fire with its exposed trunk above ground level.

      20

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Why was the [fabrication] identified so quickly in Sweden whilst an Australian uni is still dragging its heels ?

    [Slight wording change edited for inexplicable legal reasons. But good question. Exactly - Jo]

    40

    • #
      EternalOptimist

      is it possible that the swedes saw someone from JCU,
      had a ‘totally unreliable – investigate’ red light
      and proceeded to investigate?

      if so, jcu reputation is preceding them.

      and not in a good way

      00

  • #
    Hans K Johnsen

    JCU
    Never been more true.
    Opposite of Diversity is University.

    60

    • #
      Dean_from_Ohio

      Your point is well taken. A little more on the word origins though….

      Ravi Zacharias points out that the classical project of the university was to find a shared and overarching unity between the various philosophical disciplines, to find unity in diversity—perhaps today what we’d call a coherent world view. The truth, when set free, would not only defend itself but join and unite everything and everyone. Ironically, Jesus said that those who believed in him and who remained in obedience to his word would know the truth, and then the truth would set them free.

      So which is it, does the truth need to be set free or does it set us free?

      Cheers!

      10

  • #
    TonyC

    “Data has no agenda, it is what it is. It only inherits an agenda when it has been modified or adjusted by a researcher. That’s when it takes on an agenda which is a reflection of the researcher’s own bias.” – James D. Goodridge (Climatologist 1928-2020)

    20

  • #
    Liam

    JCU may be the worst, but the corruption is clearly wider.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/

    https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f

    https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/10/20/university-dumps-professor-crockford-who-found-polar-bears-thriving-despite-climate-change/

    The corruption flourishes because institutions are paid to support it.
    It will end only when that support has been removed.

    50

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Peter Fitzroy
    January 11, 2020 at 3:19 pm · Reply
    Interestingly – the paper refers to a model. I’m sure that all models will now be rehabilitated since this one is supported by the deniers on the right.

    Ha …smear and sophistry… but no gold star.
    Is Saint Greta writing your responses ?
    I have the paper..your lying.
    There is a difference between models…and nothing else.
    And models and real world experiments…thats the difference..
    The models your implying we should accept by faith alone..are just trash..try reading climate audit..(cue smear)
    ps..please keep posting here..but get someone else to check your stuff before you post..its like shooting gold fish in a barrel..
    And go zero carbon and tell us how that works.. :)

    60

  • #
    Postcript

    Behavioural changes caused by reef-water acidification?

    Those fish are on acid.

    They’re hippy fish. Case solved.

    20

  • #
    Serge Wright

    “get hyper, act like their predators smell nice, and generally swim in the wrong circles, behave weirdly and need therapy sessions”"

    Forget the fish, this description sums up the members of the green progressive movement.

    30

  • #

    This brings to mind a story Willie Soon told about one of Al Gores experiments.

    Al wanted to show how bad CO2 was for ocean acidification. So he put crabs in water with dilute hydrochloric acid and showed their shells were attacked. He crowed how terrible CO2 was…

    But then somebody did the experiment with actual Co2. AND THE CRAB SHELL WAS BIGGER AND STRONGER when Co2 was added…

    Al and the alarmists forgot that Co2 and Calcium work well in water together. And that trilobites and other hard shelled sea creatures developed when atmospheric Co2 was many times what it is now. No problem for them! Ocean acidification is a complete lie….

    50

  • #
    DavidGeo

    Investigations should cast a wider net particularly across those in academia who have outside funding arrangements like WWF and conflicts of interest. Start at the IPCC, Global Change Institute and past directors at ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies JCU.

    10