A Christmas coral

Peter Ridd writing in The Oz today: Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf. But before we go on, we should note how he is described in the paper:

Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.

With this caution noted, and bearing in mind that in regard to climate change, the science is settled and the last word has been written, we find this:

The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.

I know what he means. Keynesians have around 90-plus percent of the macroeconomic positions in the world and have been systematically dragging our economies down with their wilfully wasteful public spending. But that’s the way it has always been. I have just been reading about William Harvey who discovered the circulation of blood which contradicted the view that has been held for around 1500 years whose opinion on these matters was set in the second century AD. Before Harvey, there had actually been people burned at the stake for holding a different opinion, so Peter is coming off relatively lightly in our more enlightened times.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to A Christmas coral

  1. Steve Kates:

    The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need.

    Do we know who the Eminent Scientists were?
    This smells like an orchestrated attempt to cover up data fraud. Who else would object to data checking?

  2. Rafe

    No need to audit BOM and Aust official temp records as well! Perish the thought.

  3. egg_

    Who else would object to data checking?

    If it were robust, you’d welcome verification, non?

  4. Tom

    Peter is coming off relatively lightly in our more enlightened times.

    “More enlightened?” He is having his career and his livelihood destroyed by anti-intellectual barbarians for expressing religious heresies out of favour with our backward ruling class, which is using its power over government expenditure to send us back to the 18th century.

    #WhiteTrashOfAsia.

  5. RobK

    Dissent in science? Science cannot exist without it.

  6. Mother Lode

    If it were robust, you’d welcome verification, non?

    If they were confident of being vindicated they would leap at the opportunity of discrediting him on this so as to sow doubt for when he pipes up next time – which may well be on a point where the theory is a little more exposed.

  7. We all know which heretics should be burned at the stake, but that will never happen, even if the globe freezes over for the next 20 years.

  8. cohenite

    Great article by Ridd, an expert on the GBR who took up the cudgels after the great Bob Carter died. Carter, another sceptic, was also treated abominably by the harridans who run JCU and their beta males accomplices.

    All this in the context of turdball’s 1/2 billion gift to the GBR foundation which has as directors 3 of his goldman sachs mates and is run by a flibbertigibbet who used to run an art gallery.

    $444 million! @#$%^&@!

  9. Rafe

    A couple of previous pieces on Peter Ridd and the Reef, from the commentary on Climate Change: The Facts 2017. This is the second, you can get the first by scrolling back a day or two.

  10. Sinclair Davidson

    To be fair the author of the op-ed normally writes the description. So it is very likely that Peter Rid described himself as, “Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.”

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    It’s quite clear that the Great Barrier Reef is in no danger.

    The mechanism for corals to adapt to higher temperatures have been shown by AIMS themselves:

    How the reef became blue again (2009)

    Furthermore they will have seen the report on the supercorals of New Caledonia, which is just on the other side of the Coral Sea:

    ‘Super Corals’ Are Resilient To Climate Change, Scientists Discover (2017)

    So corals can easily adapt both directly and via natural selection to significant increases in temperature.

    The fact that these “experts” ignore such clear data shows they are activists who are fooling the public for a cause. Defund them! Taxpayers should not be funding dishonest activists.

  12. Wyndham Dix

    Cohenite’s ‘flibbertigibbet’.

    John Galsworthy’s Soames Forsyte should be posthumously pleased that the term survives into the 21st century. It is apposite to the cacophony of the times.

  13. Diogenes

    I’m a leftie greenie vaguely cicada-like thing that emits an unattractive noise. That said, I’d not noticed that climate science was any more or less advanced than any other type of science. I’m sure there are people with climate science interests who believe they’re correct and are reluctant to consider they might not be. Same as any other branch of science.

    When there is an absence of certain knowledge, the vacuum is filled by belief. Scientific belief is the working hypothesis that awaits some actual facts. Religious belief, however, is superior to all facts and cannot be changed by them. When we have a Treasurer holding a lump of coal in Parliament, and thinking that’s easily as clever as the chip-shop lady wearing a face-covering, we should probably conclude that religious idiocy infects all sides of the climate debate and further name-calling is fatuous.

    It seems to be fashionable to say that the orthodox are those who think anthropogenic climate change is real, unnecessary and is potentially worth stopping. I reckon that orthodoxy lies with the carboniferous Treasurer, now Prime Minister, and the evidently cicada-like Mr Ridd. I know the Right like portraying themselves as victims, but they aren’t and they should really man up about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.