Diligent academic sacked for dissent

Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy in Sydney last November during a presentation on quality assurance in science.

Professor Peter Ridd has just been fired from James Cook University, Queensland, for speaking out about misleading science concerning the Great Barrier Reef. He needs a lot of support. He is not the only one.

If your heart beats, strengthen it with a donation to a freedom-loving brother. Fight for freedom now before it’s gone.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy supports her colleague’s battle and exhorts us to contribute to Peter’s legal defence fund. Any surplus will go to the Bob Carter Memorial Fund, of which Peter is a director.

Anthony Watts at WUWT also backs it. A few comments from his readers:

So free speech has died in Australia just as it has in Canada.

A real university is supposed to encourage diverse ideas, not suppress the ones they disagree with.

Those responsible for Ridd losing his job need to be dishonorably discharged from theirs and be publicly shamed.

The academic hierarchy at JCU seem incapable of constructing an argument in disagreeing with Peter Ridd, so they just sack him. Pathetic [rephrased from a comment].

Peter’s GoFundMe story is here (with video). I cannot endorse his cause too strongly.

Leave a Reply

43 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Notify of


Stephanie Hawking

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/28/climate-science-deniers-new-hero-peter-ridd-institute-public-affairs Ridd has been happily criticizing the science linking dangerous climate change to greenhouse gas emissions, and the science showing the impacts of humans on corals, for more than a decade. Ridd has also repeatedly, over many years, said that the impact of agricultural runoff and water quality on the health and growth rate of corals is overstated. But his employer, James Cook University, initiated its own action against Ridd after he had criticized specific organizations at his own university in media interviews, saying they could not be trusted. This, the university alleged, went against the university’s code of conduct. So this is not about Ridd’s “freedom” to say what he wants, but is about an alleged breach of the university’s code of conduct — whether you agree with that code or not. Ridd said “we can no longer trust” the government-backed Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, based at James Cook University. But Ridd repeated in detail several of his criticisms in a November 2017 “Viewpoint” article in the journal Marine Pollution Bulletin — opening up his arguments for scrutiny. Now, as reported in… Read more »


Good news: Peter has reached his $260,000 target for legal fees.


DeSmogBlog could make their endless hit pieces a lot shorter by not putting “climate science denier” in front of everyone’s name


:%s/climate science denier//

Stephanie Hawking

Producing science, even if it wrong, like de Freitas and Carter’s, is one thing. Insisting publicly, after being told to desist, that an internationally renowned institution is lying is something else.

Eventually, after many complaints, Auckland University kept the fool de Freitas away from undergraduate students. James Cook U eventually had enough of Bob Carter’s antics and eased him off the premises too.

There is no argument to be had with people, scientists or otherwise, who believe increasing runoff, increasing ocean temperatures and acidification from increasing CO2 have no detrimental effect on the Great Barrier Reef.

Basically scientists just ignore people who insist green is red. Unfortunately politicians are a venal lot who will be long gone when we start losing our farms and coastal cities. We are looking at a human catastrophe: tens of millions of hungry people on the move…



“Eventually, after many complaints, Auckland University kept the fool de Freitas away from undergraduate students.”

Please watch yourself. Thin ice.
It’s also complete drivel. My son and my daughter both attended Chris’s courses as undergrads, not long before Chris stopped lecturing.


Speaking of tens of millions on the move, this from TVOne News last night:

“Families in limbo after projected sea level rise puts home building on ice – ‘Only good for grazing goats’ ”

After sinking life savings into a Southshore section, a young couple are told that they can’t build on it because of… climate change,

Maggy Wassilieff

Peter Ridd was sacked because he threatened the money-making engine at James Cook University

And for those who are appalled at Stephanie Hawking’s attacks on one of Australasia’s finest geologists:

Here is the Geoscience Society of NZ’s tribute to Bob Carter

Richard Christie

* In calling Chris a fool you flirt with retribution. His intellect towered above yours and his scruples would survive any examination.

Yet his grasp on science doesn’t survive examination:


Comment on “A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand”
Brett Mullan, James Salinger, James Renwick,David Wratt

Stephanie Hawking

Bob Carter won’t be remembered for his work as a geologist, but for his lies about global warming. He repeatedly told audiences that CO2 rises did not cause temperature rises but only followed them. Briefly the reality is CO2 is a feedback and a forcing, and the science is well understood. CO2 always causes warming. The present >40% increase in the CO2 level is caused by human activity; so is the present warming. Earth would otherwise be cooling.

Chris de Freitas was the subject of complaints to the university about his lectures on global warming. Are you trying to tell me he was allowed to continue bullshitting students?

If I said it was a mystery to me why anyone would prefer notrickszone and joannenova to internationally recognised legitimate science sites run by experts I would be lying.


If Bob Carter was lying, what was Al Gore doing when he presented the Vostok Ice Core data in “An Inconvenient Truth” as “evidence” that CO2 causes warming?

The Vostok data clearly shows CO2 lagging the warming.

If the evidence for CO2 causing warming is so overwhelming, you’d think a Nobel Prize winning movie maker would provide it.

Stephanie Hawking

Oxford professor Myles Allen has an excellent tutorial:

Richard Alley – 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2. NAS


Good grief. Not the CO2 lagging warming argument again.
Ocean warming for whatever reason outgasses CO2 out of the ocean into the atmosphere. The additional atmospheric CO2 causes further warming which drives further CO2 out of the ocean until equilibrium is reached. I’m pretty sure you know this already Andy.
I recommend the Myles Allen tutorial. I learnt quite a bit from it.


Which “CO2 lagging warming” argument?

I wasn’t making an argument. I was asking why Al Gore lied in AIT in presenting the Vostok Ice Core data.

Stephanie Hawking

Al Gore is not a liar. Al Gore is not a scientist.

The past shows temperature and CO2 go up and down together.

When the CO2 level goes up the temperature goes up.

When the temperature goes up the CO2 level goes up.


1. All magnitudes.
2. Greenhouse gas concentration effect on climate is non-linear, each doubling of CO2 has the same efficacy. CO2 ocean outgassing is also non-linear, plus the amount of CO2 in the ocean is finite.

Watch Myles Allen’s tutorial and then come back to us if you have more questions:

Stephanie Hawking

Rational informed people know CO2 is a important and powerful greenhouse gas. One would expect increasing Its level in the atmosphere would cause warming. Demonstrable physics and established climate science.

So how and why would a graph be interpreted to “prove” CO2 does not cause warming, but “proves” warming causes CO2?

Hint: Where is the CO2 measured? Where is the temperature “measured”?


Of course if there were an endless supply of CO2, then once warming started, for whatever reason (cf Sun, obliquity, eccentricity, precession, albedo, volcanism, aerosols …), Earth would see runaway warming and become like Venus.

The reason normal science looks like speculation to you is quite simple.


In Slide 30 of Myles Allen’s presentation, he claims that the earth’s energy imbalance is 2.5 W/m2

This seems quite high to me.

It would mean that the current imbalance is approximately what RCP2.6 projects for 2100, unless I am misreading something here.


This paper: (Trenberth et al)

claims an energy imbalance of 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2.


Hansen (2011) found it was 0.58 ± 0.15 Wm-2 for the period 2005 – 2010.


In Hansen (2005) he claimed it was 0.85 ± 0.15 Wm-2.

Numbers flying everywhere! It’s a good thing the science is settled, and the debate over.

Stephanie Hawking

Myles Allen. Slide 31. Additional 2.5W/m^2 IN due to increased GHG. Additional 1.75W/m^2 OUT due to observed 1C warming.

0.75W/m^2 increasing heat of the climate system.

“Settled” is a contentious word. The evidence for human-induced global warming and climate change is overwhelming. The science is well understood but incomplete. There is no scientific debate. The science is endorsed by every learned society on Earth. Barely a handful of scientists publishing in the field contest the consensus. Most are retired or safely dead.


0.85 w/sq.m. in 2005….or….. 0.58 w/sq.m. in 2011 ? says Hansen,.. whatever… ,Just keep looking for
numbers transposed and confusing to the second decimal place.
Precision numerical rectal endoscopy.


The science is well understood but incomplete. There is no scientific debate

How can there be no scientific debate if the science is incomplete?

Asking for a friend…


All explained on Slides 31-33 Andy.


OK, I see. Allen does seem to focus on the outward radiation though, in his presentation. I don’t find it very convincing. given that it involves the mysterious “ocean sink”



As I’m sure you know, there are two armed camps here – Trenberth with the “deep ocean ate my warming” argument and Hansen claiming (rightly) that that’s nonsense, there’s “warming in the pipeline” instead.

Good for popcorn sales, if nothing else.


Actually Bob I wasn’t aware that Hansen disagreed with Trenberth, so thanks for the clarification


Andy, Hansen proposes that aerosols blocked some heat inputs, which explains the missing heat in the upper oceans. It is unclear where these aerosols came from (or went) but it’s all bad for the future, because now the warming will begin in earnest.


I think some of the aerosols are things like coal dust and contrails. I heard from Lindzen that the “aerosol forcking” is basically a fudge factor in the climate sensitivity estimates but that’s about all I know on that topic


I think there was an attempt to measure aerosol forcing directly by satellite, but it crashed on launch


“Aerosol climate forcing is unmeasured. Aerosol uncertainty is the principal barrier to quantitative understanding of ongoing climate change. Until aerosol forcing is measured, its magnitude will continue to be crudely inferred, implicitly or explicitly, via observations of climate change and knowledge of climate
-J. Hansen et al.: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications (2011)

In other words, we guess.


Pretty much. They make up a climate sensitivity, then force-fit the data and adjust it until it behaves. Then, when real life fails to conform, they assume the difference must be due to aerosols, thus proving the aerosol values.


I had wondered why Elon Musk didn’t send the aerosol satellite back into orbit rather than a Tesla
After all, we want to settle the science about which there is no debate

Mike Jowsey

Stephanie Hawking, you say ” We are looking at a human catastrophe: tens of millions of hungry people on the move…”
Very emotive, thank you – I have spent many hours and many boxes of tissues coping with your humanitarian apocalyptic scenario. Yet I wonder, where are all these hungry people of whom you speak?

You also say, “Producing science, even if it wrong, like de Freitas and Carter’s, is one thing. Insisting publicly, after being told to desist, that an internationally renowned institution is lying is something else.”
Producing science, even if it is wrong, does not justify its censoring. Said science is also “for the greater good”. Who knows, it may be you who are wrong? The key is “after being told” – there you have the “shut-up” clause. No longer, then, free society. Shame on you for supporting such.

Post Navigation