Professor Peter Ridd
Brilliant. There is still some free speech in Australia, as long as you are willing to risk your career, 12 months out of action and a huge legal case. Peter Ridd wins on all counts.
Presumably James Cook will have to reinstate him, and he is now free to talk about the failure of replication in science and how our institutions may not be trusted. How many taxpayer dollars were fritzed defending the indefensible? Will Ridd get compensation? Will JCU staff get punished or sacked for their war against science?
Thanks to Peter for fighting on when so many would have given up, and thanks to everyone who helped fund the case!
UPDATE: In reply, the Provost of James Cook Uni says Ridd was never gagged or silenced, nor sacked for his scientific views. Which would be great if it were so. But there’s a pattern here — how many skeptical scientists do they employ? Is that zero? We all know they went to great lengths to blackball, evict, and practically erase skeptical Prof Bob Carter too. If there are any skeptical scientists left at JCU, they are probably too afraid to speak out. Which is rather the point. Without some mea culpa, and a change of management, or some encouragement for skeptics to speak we have to assume that all research from JCU is tainted — we don’t know what the researchers won’t say or which results they daren’t mention.We don’t know what experiments they won’t dare do.
Read The full legal Judgement (see especially from 2.12 onwards).
Dear All,
Excellent news.
My lawyers have told me that the judge handed down his decision and we seem to have won on all counts.
It all happened very quickly and we had no warning , and because I live almost a thousand miles from the court, I was not able to be there. I have still not seen the written judgement and will update you all when I have that information.
Needless to say, I have to thank all 2500 of you, and all the bloggers, and the IPA and my legal team who donated much of their time free for this success. But mostly I want to thank my dearest Cheryl, who quite by chance has been my bestest friend for exactly 40 years today. It just shows what a team effort can achieve.
The next chapter of this saga must now be written by the JCU Council which is the governing body of JCU. What will they do about the VC and SDVC who were responsible for bringing the university into disrepute, not just in North Queensland, but also around the world. JCU crushed dissent, crushed academic freedom and tried to crush my spirit with their appalling behaviour. They only failed because I had your support. But if the JCU council does not act, they will be complicit in this disgraceful episode.
Attention must now focus on the JCU council.
I will update you shortly when I have more information, but for now I certainly have a spring in my step.
kind regards
Peter
From Peter Ridd’s GoFundMe page
“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.
A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.
h/t TdeF, crosspatch, Bill in Oz, Another Ian
The Peter Ridd story:
- Prof Peter Ridd says the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us.
- Professor Peter Ridd is facing misconduct charges for not selling peer review as sacred?
- JCU bans Prof Peter Ridd from criticizing scientific institutions. Defiant, he refuses, fights on!
- Professor Peter Ridd sacked: James Cook Uni goes nuclear on free speech:
- Don Aitken tells it: Peter Ridd was sacked because he threatened the Money Making Engine at Uni
- Staff at JCU are too scared to use their uni email – this is what “academic freedom” looks like?
- Fake science on fake fish from James Cook Uni?
- Peter Ridd’s Court Case — Free Speech versus James Cook Uni.
BIG SMILE !! 🙂
Well done Peter et al. !
581
An acquaintance had a fight with another university recently on a matter of freedom of speech.
The university was found against – resoundly
Perhaps universities need to wake up and realize they are places of learning, not draconian leftist fiefdoms.
390
Yes, they do need a slap in the face to wake them up, which is about time since academic freedom needs to be fought for. Dr. Ridd and the many supporters for academic freedom are the hero’s we are blessed with, BRAVO!
The win was smashing because it was found 100% in his favor, which indicate just how bad the Universities disciplinary judgement was. The Judge was quite unhappy with the Universities poor responses in the courtroom, as they should have though this out before they tried to throw Dr. Ridd under the bus. They should have realized that they never had a justifiable cause to fire him.
Will post this in my forum and another forum that has a lot of Ridd haters in it, expect to see some hysterical replies in it.
250
Does JCU have a law department? This might reflect badly on their law department!
190
What FANTASTIC news! I am currently in Orange, celebrating our 54th wedding anniversary – we have just poured ourselves a glass of wine to help Peter and Cheryl celebrate an amazing, well deserved and, if the truth be told, essential win.
We look forward to seeing the full judgement and, like Peter, will be very interested to see how the JCU Council and Peter’s colleagues deal with this.
What a win for academic free speech – important for science everywhere.
520
Fantastic news and finally a win for free speech. Go get em Peter.
250
Congrats Peter, your patience, perseverance and ultimate victory won’t go unnoticed, although I suspect the ABC, Guardian and Fairfax will ignore it.
450
Just received Jennifer’s email:’!Peter Ridd has won!’
Three cheers for western demos, free speech still holding on
(just.) Three cheers for western science, reality based,
enquire and test, nullius in verba, still holding on,
(just.) Three cheers for western justice, evidence-based,
and for Peter Ridd, the individual standing up for all
of the above
370
Brilliant result and hopefully the first steps in pushing back the left-wing progressive agenda that stifles free speech which disagrees with the ‘agenda’.
Maybe the first nail in the coffin of ‘Post Modern Science’ – the ‘science’ that puts political beliefs ahead of truth, honesty and genuine science – the ‘science’ that is created via the prism of achieving a political end game.
371
I see we have one site visitor who believes in Post Modern Science ……
i.e. that it is acceptable to fudge or distort the results of a scientific study if it advances the political agenda you believe in or if it helps to achieve the political outcome you seek.
170
Roger says:
Yep. But who?
Ask the auricle. He’ll know:
Fritz. How many dollars?
The post-modernist answer’ll do.
90
The auricle has a tin ear. He won’t answer because he has selective hearing.
Now, if he were an oracle, would that make a difference?
70
I once hit a red thumb accidentally. You can’t cancel it.
10
YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congratulations Peter so very happy for you.
240
Maybe this puts bullet through the heart of “Post Modern UnScience”.
But the buggers may also just continue on as before.
Not every one has Peter Kidd’s guts to take on these ever so PC James Cook University blockhead academics.
But if the damages awarded to Peter Kidd are super stingish, they may indeed stop.
282
They’ll try to continue as before. They’ll even deny this ever happened.
10
Fantastic and very well done, Peter.
This however is not a Science decision, but a decision on the University’s right to fire Peter Ridd. They have many options now, but to continue to try to dismiss Peter would challenge the court decision. Coventry is the most likely option, making life so hard for him that he is forced to resign. Siberia, Coventry, pay but no work, no access to facilities. Expect the VC to be vindictive in defeat and Peter’s many enemies and he has many, old and new.
However now that he cannot be silenced by traditional means, the question is whether his criticism of scientific rigor in matters of the Great Barrier Reef will be sorely tested with $444,000,000 of free money available, no questions asked.
It is an awful time to be a real scientist, a meteorologist, a geologist, a geneticist, a logical thinker in a world where you are told what to think, what to believe and stories which you know to be wrong. The long march through the universities is nearly complete as these mega businesses throw ethics over the wall and go for the money. It is all wrong but we all wish Peter the best for his 40th wedding anniversary and the trials to come.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the JCU Council rewarded Peter for his determination to see that the truth will out? What’s the betting on that?
370
Unfortunately it now likely becomes about the shut-up and go away money.
Peter has been vindicated – but there will be no winners.
130
I might agree with ‘the go-away money’, but I cannot see Peter Ridd ever shutting up.
He rightly deserves to be compensated.
250
This Yank thought he would stop by and share in the elation. I would ask something though. We Yanks are not familiar with the set up of your courts and thus there are questions about appeals, etc. Jo, do you have a barrister or former judge of some person that could explain to us what this ruling really means for the Professor? What it means or could mean in punitive, compensatory, and required remedial actions for James Cook? Can the University’s legal team judge shop and appeal this decision and if so, on what grounds? What it means going forward for academic freedom in OZ. And any other aspect that I and so many other Yanks are ignorant about?
170
My immediate thought.
80
G’day RAH,
You’ve raised some questions for which I’d also like answers, but I’m no lawyer so consider what follows as my putting my understanding out there for some more knowledgeable to correct.
…
The Uni would have a right to appeal, but would have to do so within a fairly tight time frame. I don’t know if that limited time has already started (from today?) or starts when the “declarations and penalty” are handed down.
I have no idea of what penalties the judge may decide is appropriate, or what the law prescribes, but might include court costs, lost salary, damages, re-instatement…
As far as I know judge shopping is not a feature of our system, although it may be possible for a barrister to avoid a particular judge somehow.
There are rules about whether an appeal would be allowed and the Uni’s legal team would have to clearly show that one or more of those grounds were plausible. A new court date would then be set for hearing the appeal, to fit in with the timetable of the Appeals court.
I don’t know what happens if an appeal is found to be frivolous.
…
I suspect no lawyer could reply to your question as the case may considered sub-judice until the final judgement is handed down.
…
Hope this helps,
Cheers
Dave B
110
I’m not a lawyer but have had some experiences along my lifeline. Appeals in the Australian system are not a retrial, there must be a matter of law challenged, IE the trial judge has to have made a mistake in law for an appeal to be successful. In particular you are not allowed to introduce new arguments in the appeal, it can only be about the treatment of the arguments put in the lower court. If there is no point of law violated there are no grounds and an appeal would be denied. I think an appeal of this case is unlikely.
140
PS sometimes this is a PITA in a case I was involved in the judge found that short stay tenancies were not “residential” but this was arrived at because the proper characterisation of the use of a property was not well argued in the lower court. In the appeal it was not possible to introduce the new arguments and the appeal was lost, even though the lower court decision in my opinion was unsound.
That decision for example has the absurd outcome that in WA it would be illegal for a property owner to stay in their own strata titled property if they had no intention of permanent residence there ( IE makes a holiday house illegal ). Because of the no new arguments rule this argument couldn’t be used in the appeal.
Fortunately that decision only relates to a particular dispute it can be argued again next time it comes up.
80
Thanks Bobl,
I thought that might be the case, but was even. ore unsure of that than the rest.
Cheers
Dave B
20
Hope your right Bobl. Seems to me the cost for the University should be severe in order to make them and others think twice before pulling such a stunt again.
Down in Larado TX waiting for a load to come across as a the border so we can head home.
10
There is probably no legal avenue for judge shopping. But it is done. My experience of it in a local court where a man charged with embezzlement was suffering from delirium tremens when his case came up until he got a favourable judge. His superiors in the scam, a very big one, would have been the facilitators.
It seems that the university doesn’t accept that it lost this case. They will have to have the acceptance of it forced on them. Peter Ridd and his team have taken us this far, but if anybody rests on his/her laurels it will all have been for nothing.
As I see it this is a mighty blow against the bogus science in Global Warming. The Great Barrier Reef is a very big plank in their argument. But the propagandists will condemn the decision, as is already happening, and try to hide it.
The Marxist element in our politics is very well organised. Nearly forty years ago Lionel Murphy, who as attorney general in the Whitlam ALP government introduced our Family Law Act that has inflicted so much injustice as it brought on the destruction of so many marriages in Australia, was found guilty by a jury in a new South Wales court of trying to influence the protection of a friend in a court case.
Well, the uproar! Tony Blackshield, Professor of Law in Adelaide, South Australia, led the outrage, condemning the jury. Others interstate maintained the rage. Neville Wran, sometime premier of NSW and national President of the ALP, must have felt obliged by his position and made a comment in NSW, the jurisdiction of the court that found Murphy guilty. All of this was in contempt of the court, but in NSW it was answerable to the court. Wran was seriously embarrassed as a result, and would have been in a lot more trouble had he not had so many Marxist mates in the system.
After all this uproar, the guilty verdict was overturned on appeal.
About ten years later we saw the Marxists raise a ruckus, again condemning the jury, when a court found Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen not guily of criminal doings. Joh’s crime had been to, as Premier of Queensland, tackle the Marxists head on and keep them at bay for twenty years. This time nobody mentioned contempt of court, it had become passé. But criticism of juries is not supposed to happen.
Right now we are waiting on a case of global proportions. Cardinal George Pell, our most senior Catholic, was found guilty by a jury in Victoria of sexual molestation of a boy many years ago. Personally I don’t believe it happened, as I look at all the circumstances of the case. But the uproar at the announcement left Murphy’s case a long way behind. Many people of high position condemned the decision, many of them in Victoria, the jurisdiction of the decision. Victoria has a thoroughly Marxist government which will relish dragging those people over a large pile of coals. I expect that, having had time to consider their position, those people are sweating on the court of appeal overturning the jury’s verdict. That court won’t have a jury.
Meanwhile at JCU the management are not even showing signs of sweating. We need to stop celebrating and maintain the rage. This was a partisan issue. If the ALP win the coming federal election Peter Ridd will be doubly blackballed for this case.
00
One other comment. I cannot help but contrast the expeditious manner in which Peter’s case was handled in your system as compared to the glacial pace at which Steyn vs Mann is proceeding through our own.
210
We are a bit different in some respects. Lawyers are not strictly employed by the parties, they are officers of the court. To some extent this means lawyers can’t play games with the judges. In cases like these there are limited avenues for delaying stuff. If Mann had tried his antics here I think it would have been thrown out for wasting the courts time.
Again I’m not a lawyer.
100
RAH. In the 1980s we had Alan Bond. You had Michael Milken. Both gaming the system. Both destroyed huge quantities of other people’s money. The US had charged, tried, convicted, sentenced Michael Milken, and I think he may have just about completed his prison term, before we got around to charging Alan Bond.
00
So far it appears that this is not newsworthy for their ABC. Will be interesting to monitor if it actually becomes newsworthy. So far Courier Mail and The Australian have covered it.
It is great news and no doubt a few here contributed to the successful outcome.
150
I’ve sent a letter to SMH, with a link to this post, suggesting they should do a story.
Will watch with interest.
Cheers,
Dave B
161
Nothing in SMH this morning.
The ABC did put something in “Just in” lst night?
Cheers
Dave B
20
Rick, Jo’s first link at the top is an interesting ABC article. They have reported it usefully, but still seem not to want to believe it. By ABC standards it’s a “balanced” report. I didn’t notice mention of 17 to zip. Haven’t finished reading it yet.
00
best news in ages. congratulation Peter Ridd. you are a hero of science.
look forward to more details. best wishes.
180
This is really good news both for free speech and academic independence and integrity. It will be interesting to see how JCU reacts. Will this decision get much publicity in the MSM? I hope Peter Ridd gets a huge compensation package.
It’s a good job we have gofundme to make this possible.
111
Phillip:
If the bureaucrats at the JCU have a gram of self preservation they will have noticed
1. the adverse publicity generated by their decision to dump Peter Ridd.
2. the immediate reaction of the public to donate to his case (indicating they can’t keep fighting in law without him running out of money)
3. He has actually WON.
4. the adverse publcity they are getting (outside of the ABC and The Guardian) (the SMH is now in the Channel 9 net where reality intrudes)
5. from now on they will be fighting at a disadvantage.
They will either have to reinstate him which will make them gag, or pay him out. The latter decision will raise questions about WHY? The former will appear worse and I expect they will try to re-instate but with restrictions. Bear in mind the recent adverse publicity about an “approved PhD” getting (at least one) of her articles being retracted. I would think they will throw money at him and hope that no-one notices. Perhaps he could use that pay-out to set up an independent unit and continue to criticise.
All in all I think that they deserve what they get.
110
Spectator is running it.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/peter-ridd-has-defeated-the-climate-inquisition-thanks-to-you/
90
Fantastic news!!! Bravo, bravo, bravo!!! best regards to all of you from Switzerland, Freddie
120
Wonderful news.
Congratulations to Peter, his legal team, to the IPA for standing with him, to Jo and to all on Jo’s site who have supported him in one way or another.
Thanks also to Jo for getting the news out to us so promptly.
100
Fantastic News. Thanks also to the people who backed Peter Ridd in his Go Fund Me campaign. We have our reward.
I don’t know how this will play out now. I hope he is reinstated to the University with full rights and teaches classes again. I hope he can speak out more freely than before.
But it is a very serious embarrassment to the University and some of the academic staff. That is going to cause hard feelings.
100
The story is #1 in The Oz Latest News right now.
90
Now we need to makes sure the code of conduct excuse cant be used in the same way again, and JCU takes a good hard look at itself.
120
I spoke to Dr Ridd on the last day of the trial. JCU has changed the Enterprise Agreement and the new agreement would not protect him.
In negotiating the new agreement the the NTEU (Union) has dropped the ball. The union was not present at the hearing according to Dr Ridd.
40
If JCU has indeed changed the enterprise agreement so that interpreting the ‘code of conduct’, which is so broad as to be meaningless, then JCU should be closed. Serious stuff.
It would mean in practice that one couldn’t even go on something like the ABC and criticise another colleague’s view in public, as this could be deemed ‘uncollegiate’.
00
The decision is here:
https://image.s7.sfmc-content.com/lib/fe8a137271630d7d7d/m/1/b012753c-615e-4dac-bde5-8cbe42c3e5ae.pdf
90
And here (available in numerous formats): http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA//2019/997.html
10
Guardian gives it a run.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful
40
Followed by Aunty.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554
50
Wo give more space to the JCU lies than to the court judgement..
Bugger ABC !
Bunch of dopey idiots.
131
Its the A B frigging C, or the Australian Bolchevek Corporation!
72
Gay Alcorn, obviously must think there should be a limit to academic freedom.
30
Sooooo good!
70
I downloaded email and the first thing in was the complete vindication of Peter Ridd. Wow, every last complaint against him dismissed like the whining of a petulant child — short, sweet and to the point. I’m used to seeing court decisions where there’s equivocation or worse on some part of the dispute. But not from this judge. Can we borrow him for a while to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco that spends all day throwing dirt on whatever it can.
Now Dr. Ridd has to decide what he’ll do. I expect he could get his old job back if he wants it but I think that if I were in his place I would want damages and a new job to go with it. It would be tough to face people who did what some of his academic colleagues did.
Unfortunately the decision of a judge can’t change the hearts of those who tried to silence him.
140
…throwing dirt on whatever it can?
50
Does this mean we will be spared the annual media rash of, “The reef is dead, dying, going to hell” we have been subjected to for a couple of decades.
A not very interested mate recently asked me how long anything can take to actually die.
120
I think you probably haven’t heard the last of the dead reef complaints. But vindication of Peter Ridd certainly will suppress them for a while.
70
The Great Barrier Reef Has Escaped Death at Least 5 Times in The Past 30,000 Years …
Rise and fall of the Great Barrier Reef over 30,000 years
29 May 2018
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/29/rise-and-fall-of-the-great-barrier-reef-over-30-000-years.html
40
Great news!
81
Bolt had an excellent segment with Rozner. here’s a touch of it:
TWEET: Bolt Report:
WATCH: @GideonCRozner on the unfair dismissal case Marine Scientist Professor Peter Ridd has just won against James Cook University. #theboltreport @SkyNewsAust
16 Apr 2019
https://twitter.com/theboltreport/status/1118093715157897217
60
GWPF has IPA’s piece:
16 Apr: GWPF: Peter Ridd wins biggest victory on free speech in a generation
by IPA
The Institute of Public Affairs has today welcomed the historic judgement in the case of Peter Ridd vs James Cook University (JCU) with Judge Vasta finding that Peter Ridd was wrongly dismissed by JCU.
https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-wins-biggest-victory-on-free-speech-in-a-generation/
also found this on GWPF’s Twitter page:
15 Apr: Financial Times: Europe car groups face huge profit hit to cut CO2
Industry struggles to meet strict emission targets with potential penalties of €30bn
by Peter Campbell in London and Patrick McGee in Frankfurt
Forget the global trade war, declining sales or even Brexit — the sternest challenge facing Europe’s car industry comes from the exhaust pipes of its vehicles.Strict new carbon dioxide emissions targets will be phased in next year across the EU, with the threat of punitive fines for those who fail to comply.Yet the industry, broadly, is not ready…
Under the rules, carmakers must cut their average fleet emissions to less than 95 grammes per kilometre of CO2 by 2021.They face a €95 fine for every gramme of CO2 that exceeds the target — multiplied by the number of cars sold that year.
“We are talking about a potential €30bn penalty for the industry,” Volkswagen chief executive Herbert Diess warned investors at the company’s annual capital markets day. Yet emissions are heading the wrong way…
CO2 emissions from new cars are rising as consumers shun diesel models and opt for petrol alternatives, while the shift towards heavier sport utility vehicles increases pollution levels further.
New data for 2018 showed average emissions rose to a four-year high of 121g of CO2/km, according to Jato Dynamics, an auto data supplier.
Sales of SUVs, which are heavier and therefore produce more CO2 than traditional saloons, have risen by three quarters since 2015, according to IHS Markit…
Arndt Ellinghorst, lead auto analyst at Evercore ISI, described the CO2 challenge as the “biggest structural headwind” facing the sector — even more potentially damaging than trade wars with China, US tariffs, diesel bans and Brexit.
He estimated it will cost the industry €15.5bn just to make its vehicles compliant…
Many manufacturers are relying on “supercredits” from electric cars that offset more polluting vehicles, which partly explains the deluge of battery models arriving on the market in the coming 18 months, even though sales of electric cars account for less than 1 per cent of the market…
But battery costs mean many of these cars have thinner margins than traditional vehicles. Some are even lossmaking…
The timing could not be worse for carmakers, which will be forced to sell these lossmaking models to comply with the rules coming just as the industry cycle begins to decline…
Unintended consequence: death of the small carOne unintended consequence of the EU’s 2030 emissions targets could be the death of the small car.
Max Warburton, analyst at Bernstein, said the cost to equip small, low-margin cars with batteries and electric engines to meet ambitious EU CO2 targets “looks totally unaffordable”…
https://www.ft.com/content/74c04dc2-5b9c-11e9-9dde-7aedca0a081a
wish I could access this lengthy & detailed piece from The Australian, which I heard being read out on Vision Radio. it details how Australians have hugely increased purchases of diesel vehicles:
Diesel fuels mixed emotions as it becomes a dirty word in Europe
The Australian – Jan 30, 2019
20
15 Apr: Toronto Star: Results of Alberta vote could drive last nail in coffin of Trudeau’s national climate-change framework
By Chantal Hébert
Of the premiers of the four larger provinces who signed off on Justin Trudeau’s climate-change framework three year ago, only Rachel Notley is left.
That makes her the second most prominent Canadian political leader — after the prime minister — to support the notion that it is desirable to strike a balance between pipeline building and carbon pricing…
If, as the polls predict, Notley is defeated in Alberta’s election on Tuesday, Trudeau will lose yet another supporter of his climate-change framework…
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/04/15/results-of-alberta-vote-could-drive-last-nail-in-coffin-of-trudeaus-national-climate-change-framework.html
20
I live on the border with Canada, and listen to Canadian radio in the morning sometimes. They are running advertisement about how they will be getting compensation in their tax returns for the Carbon tax. I think most Canadian would prefer no compensation and no carbon tax.
50
Great news for Peter and maybe the beginning of the long road back for Australian public life.
This is a strong reminder that truth and decency have a place in our society.
Here’s to a better future.
KK
50
Great news for Peter and maybe the beginning of the long road back for Australian public life.
This is a strong reminder that truth and decency have a place in our society.
Here’s to a better future.
KK
40
While the decision is correct and welcome reinforcement of free speech we should remember that while we are incensed by JCUs illegal actions, Peter Rudd is not necessarily a sceptic he just knows that the reasons given for coral degradation are wrong and poorly researched. This says nothing about his views on climate change.
This is the view I take, for example it is impossible for 0.6 watts per square meter of warming to cause a 5% increase in precipitation therefore this IPCC prediction is wrong. It’s impossible for 0.6 watts per square meter to melt 300 cubic kilometers of Antarctic ice. It’s impossible for 0.6watts per square meter to cause more than a 0.1 mbar change in storm intensity.
That he is prepared to call out bad science is laudable but it doesn’t make him a CC sceptic by any means and without a statement to that effect by Peter , we should not characterise him as such. Mind you if he wasn’t a sceptic before he might be now after the unjust attack on his financial well being.
50
It makes him a skeptic of unsustainable science and unsupported conclusions drawn from it so naturally he’ll be skeptical of the science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and its prescriptions.
60
I think his article in the recent book released by the IPA on climate change establishes his view on reef science.
20
Grr Ridd… sorry Peter, apparently Google Android has trouble mentioning your name.
40
Congratulations! Like bad things, good things come in threes. For the second act it would be wonderful to see Mark Steyn win his case against
the Nobel LaureateMikey Mann.90
Outstanding news. This is a win that will protect a lot of good people out there. Thanks Dr. Ridd!
60
What a remarkable return on the modest investment. Like winning the lottery and some days it aint about the money but all about science and the scientific method and fear us now you defilers of it.
70
Hooray! This is great news for Dr Ridd. I’m so glad I donated to his campaign and attended the court hearing, it must be one of the few times I’ve backed a winner.
I was mistaken to say the case was about the limits of academic intellectual freedom in Australia, as it really depended on the wording of the particular employment contract that the professor had been hired under. This is not a generic right that all academics in Australia automatically have. IIRC, Peter even mentioned that one of the clauses he was using in his defense has since been removed from later EBAs used at JCU, so this not necessarily a victory for everyone at JCU, let alone any other university.
Whether he gets a job in JCU again is not even really the point now. The important part is the finding has been made by our Federal judiciary that robust disagreement, even discourteously and non-collegially, is all par for the course in any academic employment that maintains our natural right of freedom of speech by explicitly granting academics intellectual freedom.
Or in other words, you can’t fire a scientist just because you got upset that they showed the media that your arguments don’t hold water and that you had all the disconfirming evidence the whole time, because it’s their job to call it as they see it.
Peter Ridd did nothing wrong, and it is thrilling news to see that affirmed by the Federal Court.
Chances the Government will be adjusting the Federal budget downwards by $400M next week? Nah, didn’t think so.
140
Congrats Peter & co, this is great news!
One small step, or is it a giant leap?
Either way I hope it’s a sign of things to come.
I admire fighters for truth, and I like how he handled himself throughout this whole sham!
Calm, focused and steady.
A lesson for others I think.
50
UPDATE added. The whole court judgement and a link to the ABC story added to the post.
In reply, the Provost of James Cook Uni says Ridd was never gagged or silenced, nor sacked for his scientific views. Which would be great if it were so. But there’s a pattern here — how many skeptical scientists do they employ? Is that zero? We all know they went to great lengths to blackball, evict, and practically erase skeptical Prof Bob Carter too. If there are any skeptical scientists left at JCU, they are probably too afraid to speak out. Which is rather the point. Without some mea culpa, and a change of management, or some encouragement for skeptics to speak we have to assume that all research from JCU is tainted — we don’t know what the researchers won’t say or which results they daren’t mention.We don’t know what experiments they won’t dare do.
Read The full legal Judgement (see especially from 2.12 onwards). link in the post.
182
Sadly I think GBRMPA [30k down the road] is also infected with the same disease and whose research must also be tainted. They work together I assume.
20
Thank you for covering this story! I was thrilled to hear the news.
60
We should never forget this this case is about an attempt by a university — from the top of the administration down — to falsify scientific data.
Nothing will have been achieved if the climate science establishment, inside and outside of JCU, continues to behave as if nothing has happened. Such is their dishonesty and their addiction to the rivers of research funds that flow to the CAGW scam, that will be their first instinct.
120
Tom,
Sadly, this case is not about “scientific data” or an attempt to “falsify” it. The Court’s decisions are only about the University having not fulfilled Clauses 12 and 14 of Peter Ridd’s employment contract.
As the finding by the judge says,
However, and very importantly, the legal finding is about “free speech” and whether the protections for Peter Ridd to have academic free speech have been upheld as Clauses 12 and 14 of his employment contract stipulate. This is clearly stated at the start of the Conclusions of the legal judgement in its clauses numbered 293 to 302 which are written in plain English (n.b. not ‘legalise’).
Richard
00
Stephen McIntyre tweets this classic about our eco-planet savers …
“Terrence Hughes, Peter Rid’s nemesis, retweeted complaint about service at LAX airport, transit for climate conference in Hawaii.
Climate scientists tend to be very insistent on receiving premium airline service, while condemning air travel by working class.”
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1118194399987388416
80
They truly are a class above. No wonder they call themselves “expert”.
Hubris and hypocrite, among other names; apply to them appropriately.
40
I don’t know about the ABC but the morning Courier Mail on line has this reported
10
Radio National takes the side of JCU…nuff said!
50
A very learned judgement and written in plain English.
The descendants of James Cook might request JCU to cease using his name, given the university’s apparent disregard for academic freedom.
To preserve the JCU logo, they might consider “Just Cooked University” or “Just Cocked Up”.
60
After reading much of Judge Vasta’s ruling and counting the number (28) of “unlawful findings,” I think a more appropriate acronym for James Cook University is “JCU-28TU” for “James Cook University–28 Times Unlawful.”
20
You’re goddamn right there’s going to be a penalty phase, and it should be a resounding slap-in-the-face to willfully harmful academic groupthink.
Well done, Mr. Ridd. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found worthy.
100
It will be interesting to see how much the Court awards for exemplary damages.
It is a pity these actions are not also against the individuals themselves. Provost et al might not be so cavalier with their lack of contrition. But in this case, heck, it is just taxpayers’ money.
I doubt the University will alter its trajectory. New forms of education are springing up all over the place as universities lose credibility. In fifty years’ time they will be backwaters, where the less bright get their slightly embarrassing qualification. As for research, well, either it is scientific, or universities will lose their research function to organisations willing to be scientific rather than ideological.
The end is nigh, not for the world in 12 years, but for those ancient institutions now corrupted beyond recognition by a somnambulant wokeness.
50
A useful quote from Karl Popper:
“Science never confirms its claims at all, it merely disconfirms false alternatives.”
40
Add this to the despicable way JCU treated Prof. Bob Carter makes me ashamed of the uni just a few Ks down the road.
60
And the other fellow who was moved on by Macquarie university in Sydney?
I would be prepared to fork out to see Bob Carter’s decision challenged in some way.
Can it be done?
KK
50
KK, I’m a mechy/techy guy. I know nothing about unis, so can’t help.
20
Murray Salby
20
Yay!! A Bit of good news!!!
40
Great stuff indeed; newsmedia are giving wide coverage, except JCU’s Press Relelease shows they’re still in denial, considering their options to counter…
This could drag on for ages.
30
I happily donated to the defense of Dr. Ridd.
If he recovers his legal fees, he can keep the funds for a well deserved vacation!
20
One Small Step for Peter Ridd, One Giant Leap for Science!
Sincere congratulations Peter. The Climate Realists of Five Dock (NSW Sydney – Australia) will raise our glasses & share a glass or two or three or more of bubbly at our usual weekly gathering this evening!!! How sweet it is…..
20
Friends,
In his inaugural address at St. Andrews University, in 1867 John Stuart Mill said,
That remains as true today as it was in 1867.
Peter Ridd has become a hero because he demonstrated he is a “good man” who had the courage to suffer the outrages inflicted by “bad men” when he refused to “look on and do nothing”.
Richard
50
Well said Richard
30
Dear Jo,
I am not a lawyer, and I am writing to request a clarification from someone who understands Australian law.
Clause 304 of the Court’s judgement says the Court case is not concluded but is adjourned to a later date.
You report that following the judgement
However, that seems to be directly contradicted by clauses 30 to 34 of the Court’s judgement.
So, I would like to know if that public “reply” during the Court case is an act of contempt of Court by the Provost?
This matters because at present all the judgements are against the University and not the Provost or any other person.
Richard
20
Addendum
In retrospect, I think I should have added that Clause 55 of the Court’s judgement should be read together with Clauses 30 to 34.
Richard
00
I’m not a lawyer but common sense suggests theoretically yes.
I suggest the Provost of JCU should have stated that she is of the opinion Ridd was ‘never gagged’, and that she is of the opinion he wasnt ‘sacked for his scientific views’…. By that she means she still mistakenly believes the code of conduct over-rides clause 14. But saying the above- he ‘was never gagged or silenced’ contradicts the judge’s decision, which states that clause 14 over-rides the code of conduct.
Evidently JCU still believes the code of conduct should over-ride Clause 14. But this is patently ridiculous, and the enterprise agreement should NOT be changed.
It would mean in practice you couldn’t even ever criticise another view outside the published journals such as speaking on the ABC, nor ever publically disagree with an insitution’s science in your own field, because these- and just about anything else for that matter- could potentially be deemed ‘uncollegiate’, which is totally against the whole way that science (and by extension the law as well) is conducted and operates.
You can see how something like the French revolutuion descends into anarchy and farce when one uses such vague definitions as ‘uncollegiate’-virtually anything and anyone could potentially be construed this way.
30
thingadonta,
Your “common sense” concurs with my own which induced me to post my question.
For benefit of onlookers, I now expand on why the question has importance.
There is no retribution for any person so long as only the institution of JCU is punished for the treatment of Peter Ridd and is required to give him restitution. This gives no justice to any of the people responsible for the unlawful acts against Peter Ridd, and it provides no disincentive to repetition of the mistreatment we know has been given to the late Bob Carter, to Murray Salby and to Peter Ridd (and may have been given to others, too).
Punishment of people who are the guilty parties is needed if the required disincentive is to be provided.
Richard
20
I’ve been reading the court transcripts and something pertinent caught my attention.
p208
“The law is clear enough that these are separate instruments and the
code of conduct cannot prevail over the enterprise agreement. But, to put it beyond
30 doubt, clause 13.3 says:
The parties note that the code of conduct is not intended to detract from clause
14.”
Mr Wood goes on to say why the code of conduct cannot detract over the enterprise agreement. In other words, the clause 13.3 is very clear that JCU’s whole contention is wrong, i.e. to argue that the code of conduct prevails over the enterprise agreement. Yet JUC still dont agree.
Peter Ridd thinks the only way to understand JUC’s response to staff is they couldn’t have read the case documents.
10
thingadonta’
You are clearly right. I draw attention to the first three clauses of the judgement which say
I don’t Clause 3 could be more clear.
Richard
10
CORRIGENDUM. I intended to write,
I don’t think Clause 3 could be more clear.
Sorry.
Richard
10
There are two types of people in the world, according to Lord Buddha (I think): there are those who appreciate their faults being pointed out to them because it helps them on the path to perfection.
Then there a those who don’t, and won’t hesitate to tell you to mind your own business (probably not with such polite language). I fear those at JCU are of the latter type – hearing but not listening.
10