The Reef Ain't Dead

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

I guess it's a measure of the emotionalism, mob psychology and naked self-interest that seems to characterize the "consensus", that any purported "scientist" would approve the dismissal of a colleague for disagreeing with the "consensus".

Sometimes people are let go for being quarrelsome and difficult employees. Ridd could be right, AND still a jerk to work with.

[RaymondR]

Just a couple of ingredients in the gravy train:

Federal government grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $443 million.

Queensland government for water quality work $266 million.

One would be inclined to respond rather violently to anyone who attempted to disrupt the gravy train. There's big bucks to be had from the taxpayer's pocket if one can get the right narrative to prevail.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

"Cranks" because they disagree with the "consensus"? Interesting perspective. The history of science shows who the Bourbons of thought really are.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Antoine Béchampe, but you might want to look him up. Another measure of the comical intellectual vanity of humans that having gone from more or less complete ignorance to Pasteur's theories in less than two generations, they busily established a new set of orthodoxies and then started ridiculing those who didn't immediately swallow them whole.

Of course since then we've learned a lot more about microbiology, but orthodoxy is still hiding from the theory of pleomorphism. After all, we've all invested our professional reputations in monomorphism, so can hardly admit we were wrong!

This is so impressive. I have not seen so many diversions since I went to a magic show. Except that magicians are actually good at it.

You seem to miss the point, which is that if you deny based on no or flimsy evidence, that is a crank. If you disprove based on actual, real, substantive evidence, that is scientific. Your argument would seem to be that since my crackpot uncle and Albert Einstein disagreed with prevailing views they are both to be regarded seriously. Failing grade in logic 101, which is a prerequisite for atmospheric science 101.

All this rubbish about Ridd being a victim is just another diversion. He has not presented any substantial evidence to overturn AGW.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Just a couple of ingredients in the gravy train:

Federal government grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $443 million.

Queensland government for water quality work $266 million.

One would be inclined to respond rather violently to anyone who attempted to disrupt the gravy train. There's big bucks to be had from the taxpayer's pocket if one can get the right narrative to prevail.

If you're after a gravy train, the Australian coal industry netted almost AUS$90B in profit in 2019. That'll buy way more "narratives", I think.


As mentioned below "As with anything in life follow the money."

[TravelinLight]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Just a couple of ingredients in the gravy train:

Federal government grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $443 million.

Queensland government for water quality work $266 million.

One would be inclined to respond rather violently to anyone who attempted to disrupt the gravy train. There's big bucks to be had from the taxpayer's pocket if one can get the right narrative to prevail.

As with anything in life follow the money.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Your argument would seem to be that since my crackpot uncle and Albert Einstein disagreed with prevailing views they are both to be regarded seriously.

If your "crackpot" uncle had expert credentials comparable to Albert Einstein then yes, maybe so. Disagree all you'd like, but I sorta doubt anyone in Dr. Ridd's scientific field considers him a crackpot. They challenge his scientific opinions and maybe other things about him, but I doubt this includes his expertise.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

If your "crackpot" uncle had expert credentials comparable to Albert Einstein then yes, maybe so. Disagree all you'd like, but I sorta doubt anyone in Dr. Ridd's scientific field considers him a crackpot. They challenge his scientific opinions and maybe other things about him, but I doubt this includes his expertise.

How do you even keep track of so many non-substantive diversions from the central point? There is enormous scientific evidence for AGW and essentially nothing to support the deniers.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Just a couple of ingredients in the gravy train:

Federal government grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $443 million.

Queensland government for water quality work $266 million.

One would be inclined to respond rather violently to anyone who attempted to disrupt the gravy train. There's big bucks to be had from the taxpayer's pocket if one can get the right narrative to prevail.

This is just paranoia and another diversion. In the absence of relevant evidence anywhere near what is necessary to refute the data in favor of AGW, one insinuates a grand conspiracy theory.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

How do you even keep track of so many non-substantive diversions from the central point? There is enormous scientific evidence for AGW and essentially nothing to support the deniers.

I didn't realize you wanted to turn this into yet another purely climate change circus, as opposed to a discussion about whether the opinion of Dr. Ridd (and others?) may be correct that the GBR is in better health than we have been led to believe. In that regard, is it Ridd's opinion that AGW doesn't exist, or rather that it does exist but isn't negatively impacting the GBR? Either way, I don't think calling him or any other credentialed scientist a "crackpot" lends much to the conversation. It's also potentially libelous.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sometimes people are let go for being quarrelsome and difficult employees. Ridd could be right, AND still a jerk to work with.

Yup. Or Ridd could be wrong. So it seems to come down to whether the firing -- ostensibly justified or not -- was a mere pretext for silencing his academic freedoms. Apparently these freedoms are incorporated as part of the same employment contract as the provisions which the university used as a basis for the firing. So as the lower and intermediate courts saw it, it's a matter of contract interpretation requiring the reconciliation of two allegedly conflicting provisions. The high court may also resolve it this way or, as RaymondR has suggested, may invoke broader rights of academic freedom and speech outside the contract and as set forth in the Australian Constitution.

No matter what the legal disposition may be, it is ironic that the firing has brought so much attention and financial support to Ridd and his contrarian views.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And so you would support a "scientist" who denied the germ theory of disease based on perceived holes in the evidence?
And don't laugh. We've got something not far from it in the US with the infamous Dr. Scott Atlas.
Both Atlas and Ridd are just (well-credentialed) cranks taking pot shots at an overwhelming mass of evidence. Nothing in this thread has come remotely close to challenging the evidence for AGW. Nothing.
They're just whistling past the graveyard.

Have a read.

[john manning]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And so you would support a "scientist" who denied the germ theory of disease based on perceived holes in the evidence?
And don't laugh. We've got something not far from it in the US with the infamous Dr. Scott Atlas.
Both Atlas and Ridd are just (well-credentialed) cranks taking pot shots at an overwhelming mass of evidence. Nothing in this thread has come remotely close to challenging the evidence for AGW. Nothing.
They're just whistling past the graveyard.

I am a strong supporter of germ theory, having at one time worked producing vaccines. I have many examples of tests which I believe prove germ theory. However I would not dismiss an alternative opinion. Nor would I ignore the work of those who would disagree with me. Science is about challenging ideas. Skepticism is at the heart of scientific endeavour.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And so you would support a "scientist" who denied the germ theory of disease based on perceived holes in the evidence?

And don't laugh. We've got something not far from it in the US with the infamous Dr. Scott Atlas.

Both Atlas and Ridd are just (well-credentialed) cranks taking pot shots at an overwhelming mass of evidence. Nothing in this thread has come remotely close to challenging the evidence for AGW. Nothing.

They're just whistling past the graveyard.

You may want to Google "Barry Marshall" + "stomach ulcers". Imo, this has more similarities to Ridd v The Reef is Dead Consensus.

p.s. Ridd isn't a climate change denier afaik.

[RaymondR]

Ridd may or may not be a climate skeptic, I cannot recall this ever having been stated by a reliable source.

Ridd's conflict with his employer came about when he challenged the quality of some of the science being produced in support of the AGW/CC narrative. Ridd appears to one of those contrarian scientists who persists in asserting that the scientific method should remain non perverted by commercial or ideological interests.

The Ridd case assumes a much greater significance when places in the context of a number of other political developments related to free expression and intellectual exploration and development in Australia's tertiary education system.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by john manning

I am a strong supporter of germ theory, having at one time worked producing vaccines. I have many examples of tests which I believe prove germ theory. However I would not dismiss an alternative opinion. Nor would I ignore the work of those who would disagree with me. Science is about challenging ideas. Skepticism is at the heart of scientific endeavour.

Hi John
Thanks for the post. But the problem is that in science, skepticism and opinions alone ain't worth a nickel. In science you need a better hypothesis (deniers don't have one) and experiments to prove it (you can't this without a hypothesis). With all the money behind the fossil fuel industry, I am pretty certain that if there was a scientist out there with a better hypothesis than AGW, s/he would be showered with grants from the petroleum/coal industry. That it hasn't happened is overwhelmingly likely because such a hypothesis does not exist. There isn't a conspiracy.
The whole point of science is that opinions aren't worth much of anything at all. A lot of people think that astrology is real. It is just an opinion and it is not worth diddly when it comes to seeking truth. If astrologers want to believe in astrology, they are welcome to it. But they don't get to wreck our planet based on their opinions, claiming that they are just as valid as a mountain of evidence.