Thursday, 23 November 2017

Why is James Cook University trying to get RIDD of Professor Peter?

PROFESSOR PETER RIDD is Professor of Physics at James Cook University (Townsville) with particular interests in coastal oceanography, including human impacts on coral reefs. He has published over100 papers in international science journals. He is a contributor to the recently published Climate Change – The Facts 2017.

Professor Peter Ridd:
“Policy science concerning the Great Barrier Reef is almost never checked. Over the next few years, Australian governments will spend more than a billion dollars on the Great Barrier Reef; the costs to industry could far exceed this. Yet the keystone research papers have not been subject to proper scrutiny. Instead there is a total reliance on the demonstrably inadequate peer-review process” 
and, as quoted in this article by Graham Lloyd:
“We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. 
“The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.” 
This blogger is no scientist but, surely, someone calling for scientific integrity should be exalted and not excommunicated.

And that is what James Cook University is trying to do.
JCU responded in late August by launching a formal investigation for misconduct which could result in Professor Ridd’s employment being terminated. 
Professor Ridd engaged legal counsel, with new accusations being made by JCU and Federal Court action being lodged by him.
As suggested by a friend, John: might assist Peter if a firm but polite email was sent to VC Professor Sandra Harding along the lines that skepticism is the hallmark of good science.

See also:


  1. Bye-bye Australia, sad to see ya go.

    1. Peter Rees addressed an email to Vice Chancelor Professor Sandra Harding:

      Vice Chancellor Harding,

      I write to express my disgust with the JCU "misconduct" investigation of Professor Peter Ridd
      because he challenged the "Barrier reef is doomed" alarmism emanating from JCU and others.

      Barrier reef alarmism has been rampant for over 40 years and includes damage caused by;

      1. Crown of Thorns starfish

      2. Fertiliser and pesticide run off

      3. Increased nutrients

      4. Dredging

      5. Storm damage

      6. Bleaching

      7. Wind borne chemicals

      8. Sediments

      Some newspaper headlines

      1971 Sydney Morning Herald:
      GBR would die in 6 months

      1980 Canberra Times
      Human activities might inadvertently be creating a scenario for the gradual destruction of the
      Great Barrier Reef, a Senate committee was warned yesterday.

      1984 Canberra Times
      Marine life in the
      Great Barrier Reef is being threatened by chemicals carried south by wind from the
      northern hemisphere, according to two Latrobe University researchers.

      In 1998, Hoegh-Guldberg warned the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had been
      bleached white.

      He later admitted the reef made a "surprising" recovery.

      In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg claimed warming would so heat the oceans that mass bleaching of the reef
      would occur every second year from 2010.

      In 2006, Hoegh-Guldberg warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on
      Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month". In 2009 he was "overjoyed" to see how
      much the reef had recovered and the Australian Institute of Marine Science says "most reefs
      recovered fully" from the 1998 bleaching.

      2016 The
      Great Barrier Reef 'dies at 25 million years old
      after succumbing to coral bleaching', scientists declare

      Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and can no longer be saved, say scientists

      But it's bouncing back and recovering as it has for thousands of years without any help from the
      plethora of scientists demanding buckets of money so they can "save the reef".

      Peter Ridd is of the old school, he has principles and puts science before ideology or personal
      fame, a rarity in today's "science" world where anyone not adhering to the consensus is attacked,
      demonised, vilified and sacked if possible.


      Peter Rees

      Galileo Galilei

      "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single

      Thomas Huxley 1860

      "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him,
      scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. "

    2. Sorry to say this Peter, but it's true: She won't even read your letter - her attitude, as with all of her CAGW propagandist comrades: It's from a 'heretic' and is therefore nonsense and not worth reading, let alone considering.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!