Let’s hear whole climate truth
JAMES Cook University physics professor Peter Ridd is locked in a battle over free speech and scientific inquiry that brings into sharp relief the lengths institutions will go to protect the rivers of gold coming from governments hoodwinked by global warming alarmism.
Prof Ridd’s “crime” was to say the science – especially climate science – used by his colleagues to paint a grim picture of Great Barrier Reef health was not properly tested or replicated.
But instead of fighting back with science, the university has threatened Ridd with the sack unless he shuts up.
It has also been accused of trawling through hundreds of his private emails trying to dig up dirt on him.
JCU had found him guilty of “serious misconduct”, including denigrating a co-worker, denigrating the university, breaching confidentiality, publishing information outside of the university and disregarding his obligations as an employee.
Ridd responded by filing a motion with the Federal Court to overturn the uni’s ruling and to defend academic freedom.
He also went public with a plea for donations to help pay the $95,000 legal bill. Amazingly – and in what should be a wake-up call to govern- ments obsessed with misguided climate change activism – Ridd raised nearly $100,000 from 842 donors in just two days.
Everyone from the Institute of Public Affairs think tank to little old grannies donated anywhere from $5 to $5000 each to ensure Ridd could fight those who think the only acceptable science is their version of science.
The overwhelming response from average people should be a clear indication of the waning belief in climate scaremongering, and the shrill hyperbole surrounding reef health.
JCU has form for censuring staff with the wrong scientific opinion.
It parted ways with climate sceptic (sceptics are called “realists” in some circles) Prof Bob Carter from an honorary position in 2013.
“The time has come where calls for better quality control for GBR science are making some impact and now is not the time to throw in the towel. Quite the opposite in fact,” said Ridd.
“I think most of the scientists who are pushing out this stuff genuinely believe there are problems with the Reef, I just don’t think they’re very objective about the science they do. I think they’re emotionally attached to their subject.”
Ridd has copped criticism for not being a coral reef expert but he specialises in marine environments (including the GBR) and is attached to JCU’s Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research.
Since the court case was launched late last year, Ridd and colleague Piers Larcombe published a paper calling for the need to form an independent body to verify scientific claims about the GBR.
They stated that when recently published science papers were checked, about 50 per cent were wrong. There are so many bodies with their hands out for reef funding that it’s hard to obtain a definite figure, but since 2013, it would have to be well over half-a-billion dollars – and that’s just federally.
Throw in state funding and it’s a staggering amount to throw at science that’s, at best, half-right. Another example Ridd uses is that one paper which claimed coral growth had declined by 15 per cent since the 1940s had two major errors which, when corrected, showed coral growth had increased slightly.
He also casts shade on claims runoff from North Queensland cane farms is harming the Reef by saying more water flushes the Reef from the Pacific every eight hours, than what reaches it from the land in a year.
Ridd – and others around the world including Mark Steyn who is being sued for criticising Prof Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph – is finding out just how dangerous it is to challenge the climate mafia.
If the climate change lobby is right, it would present proof that human emissions are causing catastrophic warming and end the whole debate.
But that proof doesn’t exist, so they have to resort to censorship. This is a huge worry, especially when our elected leaders have been cowed by consistently wrong activists into signing away millions of dollars.
If we aren’t allowed to hear from all scientists, we cannot say we live in a truly free society and we’re only hearing propaganda.