Update on Ridd Case

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Or maybe the GBR will just migrate south to find more favourable conditions?

The GBR won't migrate - but coral growing currently in cooler waters will grow far better than it is today as a consequence of a warming climate change.

The earth is a very dynamic planet. Our continents float around in geologic time, our atmosphere changes.

It seems incontrovertible that humans, since the Industrial Revolution, have changed the composition of Earth's atmosphere. The start of widespread electrification in the 1930s-40s accelerated this process. With effective lighting we could run facories round the clock. Refrigeration needed to run 24/7/365. Time shifting around the circumference of the planet made sure that fossil fueled power plants were always emitting CO2.

With very high levels of energy intensive, developed world living standards spreading throughout the planet, our civilizational CO2 output is increasing even more. China itself has gone through human history's greatest economic transformation in only the last 35 years or so. India, with even a slightly larger population is on the brink of a similar, cheap energy driven transformation.

Our planet won't be destroyed by climate change. What is at risk is the present state of human civilization and our ability to grow enough food for our ever increasing population.

The answer to AGW is not so much as shutting down the already developed nations economies (Chinese and Indian economic growth will make that meaningless) as much as it is to decrease and reverse population growth to a level that is sustainable.

No population growth control - no changing the desire of not quite haves to achieve what developed nation citizens have. Citizens of developed nations want to keep what they have.

One thing to consider - most developed nations already have negative population growth. The only growth in US population over the last 30-40 years has been by immigration. In comparison, Japan which allows next to no immigration hasn't had population growth in decades - they just happen to have developed a lifestyle that allows long life. Russia's population is dropping because of high male mortality rates.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

He wasn’t sacked for what he was saying but how he was saying it right?

Not according to Ridd and the ruling of the court. This was the losing argument of the university. There are apparently still a few people around who, as you say, resist being told what to think and insist on thinking for themselves.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

He wasn’t sacked for what he was saying but how he was saying it right?

That's what JCU would have you believe. It was their ostensible reason.



But if that were the truth then why have then not addressed any of his valid criticisms?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by AndyEss

....No population growth control - no changing the desire of not quite haves to achieve what developed nation citizens have. Citizens of developed nations want to keep what they have....

I agree with you that it would be best to reduce Earth's human population. In my opinion the most humane way to do that is to raise the standard of education in the developing world, especially among women. But if you do that you will also increase their desire and ability to have a higher standard of living. With a higher standard of living comes a higher carbon footprint -- which is counterproductive to one of the reasons to reduce population in the first place.

That conundrum puts us back to our current dilemma of how to substantially reduce our use of carbon fuels while still maintaining our standard of living. The other option, of course, is to reduce our standard of living....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's what JCU would have you believe. It was their ostensible reason.



But if that were the truth then why have then not addressed any of his valid criticisms?

One of the reasons why it sounds like the court concluded that JCU's ostensibly neutral reasons for the firing were pretextual.

Unfortunately, this is an all too familiar pattern when it comes to anything related to the CC issue, and the GBR is one of several which are highlighted to try and influence people that they should be alarmed by MMGW. Any sort of pushback or critique is countered with attacks on contrarian individuals & institutions as opposed to the science itself. We see the exact same thing throughout these threads, which is one reason why they are so instructive. In fact, the pattern is so well established at this point that it can generally be assumed that there's no legitimate, science-based explanation whenever an individual or institution is attacked. Like the judge in this case . . . .

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Exile

One of the reasons why it sounds like the court concluded that JCU's ostensibly neutral reasons for the firing were pretextual.

Unfortunately, this is an all too familiar pattern when it comes to anything related to the CC issue, and the GBR is one of several which are highlighted to try and influence people that they should be alarmed by MMGW. Any sort of pushback or critique is countered with attacks on contrarian individuals & institutions as opposed to the science itself. We see the exact same thing throughout these threads, which is one reason why they are so instructive. In fact, the pattern is so well established at this point that it can generally be assumed that there's no legitimate, science-based explanation whenever an individual or institution is attacked. Like the judge in this case . . . .

It is going to be very interesting to see the degree to which JCU is punished for their attempt to support the "consensus" and whether the outcome of the case will discourage this sort of activity in the future and whether it will encourage other sufferers to react in an effective and positive way. Ridd was fortunate in being able to attract funding for his case.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by AndyEss

The GBR won't migrate - but coral growing currently in cooler waters will grow far better than it is today as a consequence of a warming climate change.

Makes sense, but unless you’re paraphrasing (or interpreting) a study I haven’t seen yet it simply isn’t the case!

Corals currently growing in cooler water (temperate coral, different from tropical corals) rely much more heavily on plankton as a food source. This is because the photoperiod during winter sunlight hours isn’t enough to sustain them via zoox photosynthesis.

The problem with your theory is when the water temperature here rises, the plankton they rely on for survival won’t hang around as they like cooler water! Tropical reefs are nutrient poor environments and why most coral rely very heavily on photosynthesis as a food source.

Tropical coral reefs won’t survive cold water latitudes because there’s not enough sunlight.

I mentioned different coral feeding strategies and plasticity in a previous thread. Obviously I’m referring to corals in general, there are a couple of exceptions to the rule...but not enough to constitute a reef! There are also a few highly unique habitats that don’t conform mainly due to ocean current and flow dynamics

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not according to Ridd and the ruling of the court. This was the losing argument of the university. There are apparently still a few people around who, as you say, resist being told what to think and insist on thinking for themselves.

Yep you’re right too!

I’m not sure why you aligning your beliefs with what Ridds telling you to believe? Is it because of his extremist viewpoint? His authority, climate change beliefs or because of the studies, facts and science he’s using to support his argument?

If you’re able to think for yourself please tell me why you believe in Ridds theory, better yet show me some credible evidence to change my mind. Believe me I’ve tried looking everywhere. Everything I’ve seen so far is massively flawed click bait targeting people who can’t think for themselves and less than informed in the subject... think what your told tribalism, but please show show me otherwise....

[Reefmagnet]

Oh puddleduck, if only you'd let us know how much more of a coral expert you are compared to Ridd right from the start we'd all just have agreed that he only won his case due to an incompetent judge.

Then this thread would have finished at post #3.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's what JCU would have you believe. It was their ostensible reason.

I believe what I do based on an informed judgement in the field. There are always two sides to every story. Here’s JCU take if you’re interested...

http://https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2019/april/response-to-federal-circuit-court-judgement

But if that were the truth then why have then not addressed any of his valid criticisms?

If you’ve ever seen a toddler loosing his sh#t in the supermarket you’d know there’s no reasoning! Just ignore him and he’ll eventually burn out.

I do actually sympathise with some of his concerns, notably that of quality control. No irony lost here!

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh puddleduck, if only you'd let us know how much more of a coral expert you are compared to Ridd right from the start we'd all just have agreed that he only won his case due to an incompetent judge.

Then this thread would have finished at post #3.

That's an ad hominem argument.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

That's an ad hominem argument.

Nope an ad-hominem argument would be pointing out Puddleduck is just like Sailoar in that he only posts in off topic forums related to climate change on a boating website.


But at least he's had some sailing lessons and has started a single thread in a general forum

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh puddleduck, if only you'd let us know how much more of a coral expert you are compared to Ridd right from the start we'd all just have agreed that he only won his case due to an incompetent judge.

Then this thread would have finished at post #3.

Actually I am Peter Ridd!


...not really!



I don’t like to brag about my credentials, I’m sure you’d only hold it against me anyway. Do yourself a favour and try to separate the person from the facts. I don’t have a problem with the guy, I don’t know him. I have a problem with the quality and lack of factual information to support his claims.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nope an ad-hominem argument would be pointing out Puddleduck is just like Sailoar in that he only posts in off topic forums related to climate change on a boating website.


But at least he's had some sailing lessons and has started a single thread in a general forum

I'm glad to see that you agree with me that your previous arguments against me are also ad hominem arguments.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm glad to see that you agree with me that your previous arguments against me are also ad hominem arguments.

It wasn't me that pointed out that you only post on CC subjects, but I was previously aware of the fact.