It is now three years since James Cook University in Australia, a name unlikely to survive long in the woke era, fired Peter Ridd for being a scientist while in their employ. Ridd, a professor of physics aka a “climate scientist”, publicly challenged orthodoxy on the rumoured impending death of the Great Barrier Reef. And when he challenged his firing, in a court proceeding few of us could afford backed by the Institute of Public Affairs and private donors to his legal fees, the university happily spent endless amounts of other people’s money to suppress free inquiry. Ridd won a stinging judgement and the university immediately continued its lawfare by appealing. They won and now Ridd has received special permission from the High Court, Australia’s supreme court, to make a final appeal.
The importance of this case is hard to overstate. And not just in Australia though obviously the legal ramifications will be felt primarily there. In a world in which the alarmists have seized the commanding heights of politics, celebrity culture and academia, and proceed ruthlessly against all who dare ask questions, it is no exaggeration to say that there will be no such thing as climate science if Ridd loses.
What young person, not merely lacking his direct and indirect financial resources (being famous, Ridd was able to fundraise) but also knowing that they will be blacklisted in the profession they love, will ever dare challenge authority if Ridd loses? And what university, in Australia at least, will ever dare repeat this disingenuous quashing of legitimate science if Ridd wins?
Climate is hardly the only subject on which dissent is now equated with treason. The “experts say” meme may not have originated in climate science, but its utility in stifling debate was certainly demonstrated there and has now become widespread including on COVID-19 and indeed gender. But science ought to be most resistant to critical intersectional theory and bullying, dealing as it does or likes to think it does in hard facts. Of course as theorists like Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper rightly argued, it is the applicability of competing paradigms that is at issue in the big debates. Still, the Great Barrier Reef is either dead or it’s not, and if it’s not, it’s either conspicuously dying or it’s not. And it should be possible to tell which it is by going and looking.
If one person says it’s dying, and another would like to say I checked and it looks pretty good to me, here’s my evidence, but is not allowed to, it’s a dark day for free inquiry and for freedom generally. We wish Dr. Ridd success in his case, and urge you to follow it closely. At the moment he believes he has enough funds for his final appeal.
What dismays me is that the University (JCU) claimed that it was the way that Peter Ridd expressed his views that caused his dismissal. He upset a colleague by expressing a contrary view! The Woke-PC-left-leaning administrators think that anyone that upsets them must be silenced.
What makes more sense is that we TOLERATE dissenting views.
Currently the "Right" are asked to RESPECT the views of the "Left". If respect is not given, then the disrespectful must be silenced.
Let's push for TOLERANCE of contrary view-points, rather than demanding RESPECT.
So true Alexander!
The left seems to be preachers of tolerance, not practitioners.
I just started reading Dr. Patrick Moore's new book, "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom", and learned of Dr. Ridd's situation. Hopefully the court will find in favor of Dr. Ridd, but in today's cancel culture climate that may be too much to expect. Science appears to be closer to extinction than the Great Barrier Reef!
Currently on the Dr. Ridd fundraiser web site (i.e. February 20, 2021, 12:26AM) the fund raising effort has been disabled by Dr. Ridd as "having exceeded the original targets". Wow! I wonder if the climate alarmists have a single honourable supporter amongst them that would make the same decision on fund raising under similar circumstances, i.e. they would keep "raking it in"?
The problem i forsee Ridd facing is finding a reef expert who isn't so cowered by the woke nonsense to actually go out there (40 odd km) and actually tell the truth about what they see.
Perhaps without the inevitable "Well, it looks fine now .... But soon it won't because.. well... scientists say"?
Isn't the court case actually focusing on mr Ridd's criticism of the sloppy peer review system in general? Having peer reviewed a number of scientific papers as a professor at JCU, he claims that there is a lack of quality control of the peer-review system in general. Was he not fired due to this criticism, rather than his claim that Great Barrier Reef is far from going into extinction? The leaked Climategate emails from Anglia reveals a disturbing pattern of cronyism in the peer-review system, where scientists make tacit agreements to peer-review each other's publications, while at the same time discouraging peer-reviewing of scientific papers published by their opponents. Correct me if I'm wrong.