Update on Ridd Case

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I haven't been following the Ridd case closely, so I don't have a personal opinion. But it appears you are making a logical fallacy called False Dilemma/False Dichotomy by limiting the reasons for Ridd's dismissal to only two options. JCU presented another reason for the dismissal, and potentially there could have been many more.

Having been fired a number of times myself I have personal experience as to both how quickly one can transform from saint to demon and the vastly expanded extent of ones transgressions once the transition is made.

I have also observed a number of other people being fired and was eventually deduce the most effective methods for avoiding it:

The first is to never lose your good old boy status. This of course requires that you conform with the current memes, it's not the time to break ranks for any reason.

The second is to avoid embarrassing upper management. Nothing will get you fired quicker than having the managing director or president of the company being sheepishly obliged to explain why an underling who uncovers faults in his or her's organization has been allowed to thrive within said organization.

It appears that Ridd lost his good ole boy status by criticizing the poor work of fellow scientists and in doing so seriously embarrassed JCU management.

[weavis]

So.
This thread has degenerated into personal attacks, climate change philosophy and has contributed little to the issues surrounding Mr Ridd.

It is not going to continue. CF is about boating. The OFF TOPIC forum threads should have some relevance to boating. This was allowed to run and the undesired but expected result has ensued.

Contributing members have a short time to straighten up the thread or it will be closed.

its not like you didnt know........

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by weavis

So.
This thread has degenerated into personal attacks, climate change philosophy and has contributed little to the issues surrounding Mr Ridd.

It is not going to continue. CF is about boating. The OFF TOPIC forum threads should have some relevance to boating. This was allowed to run and the undesired but expected result has ensued.

Contributing members have a short time to straighten up the thread or it will be closed.

its not like you didnt know........

I guess we chalk it up to another sailorar success.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

I guess we chalk it up to another sailorar success.

No.
Its all of you.

just because someone asks a question, it doesn't mean you have to answer. Just because a person makes a statement, it does not mean a response must be made.

If you have a problem with a member, remember that YOUR individual responses will be weighed in the balance of the problem when a complaint is lodged to the site team.

We strive to be fair. We try not to take sides despite our personal leanings and sensibilities. We work to the rules over and above the desire to rectify the solution our individual way........... The mod team collectively and RELUCTANTLY allow some members to continue because a rule has not been broken....... but skirted close to.

By adherence to the rules, CF manages to keep its place as the number ONE Boating Forum on the net. It does not always make us popular to some members when it seems we appear to be doing nothing regarding a particularly aggravating member or a members style of posting.. however, nothing is missed and EVERYTHING is weighed against the charter of the forum rules.

Take personal accountability for your own conduct.

We think you are all great people!! (who sometimes could do with refreshing yourselves on the rules.)

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

This isn't a religious test

Agree, let’s get back to science, bias filter disabled?

Link to Ridds publications
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/vi...058546F84.html

Link to someone more credentialed, with many, many, many more relevant published papers on coral biology, not just fracking and dredging.

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/person/terry-hughes

I'm not an expert so can't really comment on the science Ridd is using...But I can grasp his extensive credentials & expertise, as I can of those of his colleagues with different views.

.....And

This simply leads me to conclude that the threat to the GBR may not be as extreme as we are being led to believe.

So which of all the published studies linked above would leed you to this conclusion? Let me guess

http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploa...s-2017-IPA.pdf


I can see some seriously fundamental flaws in the key arguments in the above paper but I won’t bother, it’s just boring now.

Throughout the 2 different threads, my intention has been to try and impart some kind of ‘general’ understanding in the hope people with little knowledge of the subject can have more of an informed view on the subject. Ive posted on the difference between coral species, Reproductive methods, feeding strategies, growth and calcification, environmental parameters like water chemistry, light and flow dynamics, what coral bleaching actually is and how it works (see my previous posts) And of coarse the difference between a reef, reefs and The GBR and how it’s all intertwined.

I don’t expect my comments to be taken any differently from anybody else on CF other than on their merits. I find some of the close minded responses of some round here to be akin to the behaviour Peter Ridd accuses his peers of.


Here’s a recent counterpoint by JCU entitled “A glimmer of hope for the worlds coral reefs” (Very ambiguously written!!! )

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases...ds-coral-reefs

the mix of species is changing very rapidly,”said lead author Prof Terry Hughes, Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Coral CoE)

For those who are interested note the large bleached Porites in the pic at the top of the page (it’s one of the corals next to the diver). Bleached, not dead and most likely to recover out of all coral species (tissue thickness, energy/lipid reserves, blah blah blah). Ridd almost exclusively refers to this sp. in his assessments. Also note the lack of a coral reef in the picture

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

....


....


For those who are interested note the large bleached Porites in the pic at the top of the page (it’s one of the corals next to the diver). Bleached, not dead and most likely to recover out of all coral species (tissue thickness, energy/lipid reserves, blah blah blah). Ridd almost exclusively refers to this sp. in his assessments. Also note the lack of a coral reef in the picture

Smoke and mirrors. Compare the similarities with the photo in this article:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...debbie/9999302

[RaymondR]

There is a good opinion piece in today's (24 April) The Australian by Janet Albrechtsen headlined THAT"S CODE FOR 'CONDUCT YOURSELF AS WE TELL YOU" regarding the Ridd case and the use, abuse and misuse of the "code of conduct" by virtue signalling organizations to suppress discussion of PC issues.

It's getting quiet a bit of fairly thoughtful commentary in some sections of the media although not from "our ABC".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Agree, let’s get back to science, bias filter disabled?

Not sure that's really possible, but an effort towards more objectivity would be most welcome.

Link to Ridds publications
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/vi...058546F84.html

Link to someone more credentialed, with many, many, many more relevant published papers on coral biology, not just fracking and dredging.

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/person/terry-hughes

How is Terry Hughes "more credentialed" than Professor Ridd, or is that more of a personal opinion on your part? Does Ridd have ties to the fracking & dredging industries? If so, I wasn't aware.

.....And



So which of all the published studies linked above would leed you to this conclusion? Let me guess

http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploa...s-2017-IPA.pdf

As I stated, my conclusion is simply that the threat to the GBR may not be as extreme as we are being led to believe. Given the conflicting expert opinions, how is that flawed?


I can see some seriously fundamental flaws in the key arguments in the above paper but I won’t bother, it’s just boring now.

If it was boring then this thread wouldn't still be going. I'd say go for it, but all the more effective if you can put it in layman terms (to the extent possible).

Throughout the 2 different threads, my intention has been to try and impart some kind of ‘general’ understanding in the hope people with little knowledge of the subject can have more of an informed view on the subject. Ive posted on the difference between coral species, Reproductive methods, feeding strategies, growth and calcification, environmental parameters like water chemistry, light and flow dynamics, what coral bleaching actually is and how it works (see my previous posts) And of coarse the difference between a reef, reefs and The GBR and how it’s all intertwined.

All true, except you left out your rather intense negativity towards Ridd, the basis for which seems to come down to him having opinions which you don't personally approve of. The fact that they are out of sync with most of his peers is certainly relevant, but hardly dispositive.

I don’t expect my comments to be taken any differently from anybody else on CF other than on their merits. I find some of the close minded responses of some round here to be akin to the behaviour Peter Ridd accuses his peers of.

Actually, I found your responses more akin to the behavior Ridd accuses his peers of. It goes well beyond mere differing opinions on the threat to the GBR since he challenges their methodologies.

Here’s a recent counterpoint by JCU entitled “A glimmer of hope for the worlds coral reefs” (Very ambiguously written!!! )

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases...ds-coral-reefs



For those who are interested note the large bleached Porites in the pic at the top of the page (it’s one of the corals next to the diver). Bleached, not dead and most likely to recover out of all coral species (tissue thickness, energy/lipid reserves, blah blah blah). Ridd almost exclusively refers to this sp. in his assessments. Also note the lack of a coral reef in the picture

The usual media sources have long equated "bleaching" as synonymous with coral "death." Except that's not always true, is it? Someone should tell the BBC.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not to change tack, but who else sees the irony of hordes of researchers buzzing about the GBR, Arctic, Antarctic and other environmentally sensitive regions of this fair planet in multitudes of CPSFM's and derivitives???

This argument (often expressed as some form of AlGoraphobia) is usually a good indication that the user is ignoring their only valid point - that more and better science must be done, and that more discussion and debate is required.

It's a useful marker for discerning the difference between honest skepticism and denial.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

The usual media sources have long equated "bleaching" as synonymous with coral "death." Except that's not always true, is it? Someone should tell the BBC.

Sometimes, the media gets it (mostly) right.

When a coral bleaches, it is not dead. Corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress, and are subject to mortality, due to recurrent shocks.
➥ https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/austr...ntl/index.html


Whether they (popular media) do, or not, doesn't change the facts.

“Global warming impairs stock–recruitment dynamics of corals”
Changes in disturbance regimes due to climate change are increasingly challenging the capacity of ecosystems to absorb recurrent shocks and reassemble afterwards, escalating the risk of widespread ecological collapse of current ecosystems and the emergence of novel assemblages. In marine systems, the production of larvae and recruitment of functionally important species are fundamental processes for rebuilding depleted adult populations, maintaining resilience and avoiding regime shifts in the face of rising environmental pressures. Here we document a regional-scale shift in stock–recruitment relationships of corals along the Great Barrier Reef—the world’s largest coral reef system—following unprecedented back-to-back mass bleaching events caused by global warming. As a consequence of mass mortality of adult brood stock in 2016 and 2017 owing to heat stress, the amount of larval recruitment declined in 2018 by 89% compared to historical levels. For the first time, brooding pocilloporids replaced spawning acroporids as the dominant taxon in the depleted recruitment pool. The collapse in stock–recruitment relationships indicates that the low resistance of adult brood stocks to repeated episodes of coral bleaching is inexorably tied to an impaired capacity for recovery, which highlights the multifaceted processes that underlie the global decline of coral reefs. The extent to which the Great Barrier Reef will be able to recover from the collapse in stock–recruitment relationships remains uncertain, given the projected increased frequency of extreme climate events over the next two decades.
~ by Terry P. Hughes et al.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1081-y

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This argument (often expressed as some form of AlGoraphobia) is usually a good indication that the user is ignoring their only valid point - that more and better science must be done, and that more discussion and debate is required.

It's a useful marker for discerning the difference between honest skepticism and denial.

Uh-huh, righto.

So what do you suggest they research with after fossil fuel is banned?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Uh-huh, righto.

So what do you suggest they research with after fossil fuel is banned?

That is, of course, a misrepresentation of what a possible, realistic strategy would entail... and another marker of denial.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Uh-huh, righto.

So what do you suggest they research with after fossil fuel is banned?

In the last few days you've used the Ad Hominem argument and the False Dilemma argument. Now you've moved on to the Straw Man argument.

In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

In the last few days you've used the Ad Hominem argument and the False Dilemma argument. Now you've moved on to the Straw Man argument.

In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.

How's your canoe going. Get out on it much?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

How's your canoe going. Get out on it much?

Now you're using the Red Herring fallacy.

A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. Red herrings are typically related to the issue in question but aren’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing they confuse and distract.