Update on Ridd Case

[GordMay]

Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report:
cause for concern and accelerated action
29/08/19 ~ by Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
About ➥ https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/news-room/...lerated-action

GBR Outlook Report 2019 ➥ https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/3474

Summary ➥ https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/3478
Fact Sheet ➥ https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui...-FactSheet.pdf

[Baronkrak]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Senior Fellow, Institute of Pubic Affairs

That become interesting.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Baronkrak

That become interesting.

The IPA has long supported Dr Peter Ridd in this legal matter.

For that matter, so has a major employees' union in the tertiary education sector.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My contrarian friends, what is the goal? If you think that the harms of human activity inflicted upon the planet have been overstated... then what? We get to chug along with no changes, shouting down any report of current or potential harm? Drill, baby, drill? (and burn, baby, burn it as fast as it comes out of the ground?) Keep dumping the mess wherever, as long as it's out of sight? Walk away when the resource is exhausted...

Lake, I have long wondered why we cannot have civil discourse on the environment, the current state, and the future. It seems much like the ardent Covid debates on here where both sides tend to try and outbalance the other in pursuit of some understanding. It strikes me that this could be mitigated by the recognition that dissenting "facts" may be true or more true than what we tend to believe and we can all move toward more responsible discussion.
The acid test for me in any thorny discussion is the genuine presentation of answers. People who ask questions and then pursue the validity of the answers are better informed and are my friends.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

The IPA has long supported Dr Peter Ridd in this legal matter...

Of course they do ➥ https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change

The Institute of Public Affairs [IPA] is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank, which has been one of the largest promoters of climate science denial in Australia, sponsoring a number of speaking tours and books, while its fellows have challenged the legitmacy of climate change science, and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Executive Director John Roskham, “’Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one way or another," he says, listing some prominent figures on the local circuit.[1]
The IPA key policy positions include: advocacy for privatisation and deregulation; attacks on the positions of unions and non-government organisations; support of assimilationist indigenous policy, and refutation of the science involved with environmental issues such as climate change.

[1] ➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20140811...t-of-the-doubt

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Lake, I have long wondered why we cannot have civil discourse on the environment, the current state, and the future. It seems much like the ardent Covid debates on here where both sides tend to try and outbalance the other in pursuit of some understanding. It strikes me that this could be mitigated by the recognition that dissenting "facts" may be true or more true than what we tend to believe and we can all move toward more responsible discussion.

It's mainly down to politics. It seems to me that sensible people of any stripe could look at a big mess and agree that it's a big mess and should be cleaned up. The root of conservative was once conservation and common sense, but now it's just "conserve my wealth". Anti-environmentalism has proven to be an effective wedge issue, along with a bunch of other anti's, and most western conservative/right-wing groups have embraced this. Plus, just keep the mess out of most people's day-to-day life, and it's easier to pretend that it's all peachy. Climate change has been a lightning rod for this anti-environmental dogma, standing in for all the other "greenie" causes... successfully attack it, and all the other such concerns are beaten back as well.

As the CC discussion on CF is mainly a political one... not much will be learned here, I'm afraid. It's just a digression that some enjoy.

[danstanford]

Lake, I can concur that there is a bunch of politics involved but in my opinion that is too simple an explanation. There is too much embellishment on the part of the greens of this world to allow anyone to simply accept the claims of environmentalists without reservation and explanation. The truth is bad enough on its own!
If you want to make it about politics, the left has adopted a strategy of shouting down and belittling anyone raising any questions which just doesn't help us to understand. Like most things in this world I find the best place to start is mid way between the poles (left and right if you prefer) and try to understand from there.
The truly tragic thing is that we have no way to understand scale in the discussion so we can make better decisions as a populace. I am great with symbolic gestures and applaud Greta Thunberg hitching a ride on a sailboat across the Atlantic even though I know the scale is irrelevant. What I don't get from the yelling is how impactful things like a pine beetle infestation or burning wood for your heat are in the grand scheme of things.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

If you want to make it about politics, the left has adopted a strategy of shouting down and belittling anyone raising any questions which just doesn't help us to understand. Like most things in this world I find the best place to start is mid way between the poles (left and right if you prefer) and try to understand from there.

I won't deny the annoying truth about some of those lefty tactics... but the science isn't mid way between the poles, so the idea that "mid-way" is a good starting point simply underscores the success that those playing up the anti- side have had. John Oliver puts it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

This post will now be refuted by some counter-point referencing Dr Spencer

[Baronkrak]

It was “The Institute of Pubic Affairs" that interested me.

[michaeld]

All I saw was IPA and immediately became thirsty.

[Boatguy30]

Yes it’s rather amazing that China has come right and is now tariffing Aussie wine and looking to protect the reef for future generations. I know the wine thing seem unrelated but that’s pressure to not build the coal power plants in Indonesia.

But this is all rather complex. Can’t wait to see what happens!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Yes it’s rather amazing that China has come right and is now tariffing Aussie wine and looking to protect the reef for future generations. I know the wine thing seem unrelated but that’s pressure to not build the coal power plants in Indonesia.



But this is all rather complex. Can’t wait to see what happens!

Maybe they could build some artificial islands at strategic locations along the GBR to keep an eye on things. I've read that they're pretty good at that.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by StuM

Not even that.

"Overnight Chinese players in the UN have pushed it to the top of a list that had 82 more fragile ecosystems ahead of it.
...
The World Heritage Committee has not visited the reef since 2012, and there has been no mention of an “in danger” listing since 2015."

And 14 of the 21 countries on the committee are participating in the Belt and Road Initiative and in debt up to their necks to the instigator.

[Alan Mighty]

Dr Peter Ridd, the right-wing/libertarian Institute of Public Affairs, and the left-wing National Tertiary Education Union, seem to have lost their legal case against James Cook University.

See: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...13-p58zk2.html

Sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case


By Nick Bonyhady and Lisa Visentin
Updated October 13, 2021 — 10.21am
first published at 9.52am

A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom.

Peter Ridd had been a long-serving professor at the university when he was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.


He took a parting shot at the university as he informed his supporters “with a heavy heart” on Wednesday that the High Court had dismissed his appeal over his sacking.

“So JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave,” Dr Ridd said in a statement posted to Facebook.

“It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs. All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.”

JCU has been contacted for comment.

Dr Ridd, the libertarian Institute of Public Affairs and the left-wing National Tertiary Education Union argued that whatever the merits of Dr Ridd’s views, he was protected by a right to academic freedom in the university’s collective pay agreement with staff.

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.

On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.

The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified and quoted the famous 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill in their reasoning.

“Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world’,” the justices held, “the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind’.”

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.

“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

The Institute of Public Affairs, which had helped Ridd run his case via crowdfunding and public relations support, said the decision showed Australia’s universities were mired in a crisis of censorship.

“Our institutions increasingly want to control what Australians are allowed to say and what they can read and hear,” executive director John Roskam said in a statement that also announced Dr Ridd would be joining the institute as an unpaid research fellow to work on “real science”.

Ahead of the decision on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge announced that all 41 Australian universities were now compliant with the French model code on free speech, proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French.


“This has taken two years to get to this point, but each university now has policies which specifically protect free speech,” Mr Tudge said.

The federal government has also legislated a definition of academic freedom into university funding laws - a push led by former education minister Dan Tehan who said last year that he’d received legal advice that Dr Ridd would not have been sacked had the definition been in place at the time.

The definition, which was also based on wording recommended by Mr French in his government-commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities, includes “the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research” and “to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research.”

[RaymondR]

So their finding was that whilst Ridd had a right to intellectual and academic freedom he had no right to defend the right?