University Censures Science Prof For Fact-Checking Global Warming Claim

An Australian university recently censured marine scientist Paul Ridd for “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution,” because he questioned popular claims among environmentalists about coral reefs and global warming.

What was Ridd’s crime? He found out two of the world’s leading organizations studying coral reefs were using misleading photographs to make the case that global warming was causing a mass reef die-off. Ridd wasn’t rewarded for checking the facts and blowing the whistle on misleading science. Instead, James Cook University censured Ridd and threatened to fire him for questioning global warming orthodoxy.

“These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the Daily Caller  New Foundationinternet and used very widely to claim damage,” Ridd told The Weekend Australian newspaper.

The Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority published photos in a report of the Great Barrier Reef in the 19th Century and 1994 to bolster their claim man-made global warming was causing widespread coral bleaching.

“Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs,” the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority published in its 2014 report, next to the side-by-side photos of the reef.

Ridd, who’s been working for years to make sure research institutions are using sound science, found the photos were misleading. For starters, Ridd said it’s not possible to say what killed off parts of the reef featured in the 1994 photo.

“In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” Ridd said.

“My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?” Ridd said.

Ridd’s not alone in criticizing some institutions and environmental groups for over-hyping the impacts global warming will have on coral reefs.

A recent Australian Institute of Marine ­Science survey, for example, found 73 percent of the Great Barrier Reef would escape global warming unscathed, and that most of the bleaching had taken place in the northern section of the reef.

In fact, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s own chairman had to come out and dispel notions the reef was almost completely gone.

“This is a frightening enough story with the facts, you don’t need to dress them up,” chairman Russell Reichelt recently said. “We don’t want to be seen as saying there is no ­problem out there but we do want people to understand there is a lot of the reef that is unscathed.”

“We’ve seen headlines stating that 93 percent of the reef is prac­tic­ally dead,” Reichelt said. “We’ve also seen reports that 35 percent, or even 50 percent, of the entire reef is now gone.”

“However, based on our ­combined results so far, the overall mortality rate is 22 percent — and about 85 percent of that die-off has occurred in the far north ­between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250 kilometers north of Cairns,” he said. “Seventy-five per cent of the reef will come out in a few months time as recovered.”

The group’s former chairman Ian McPhail even accused environmentalists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain.”

Despite the campaign to tamp down on reef alarmism, Ridd was punished by James Cook University for “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues.” The university even warned that if he does this again, he’ll be tried for serious misconduct.

“I feel as though I am the whistleblower,” Ridd said.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • Kicker

    So we must not question the work of scientists out of respect for their reputations. NONSENSE.

    • Duke Silver

      If they are honest researchers then their reputation will be elevated by close inspection rather than denigrated by the same.

      In science, you gotta let the chips fall where they may. Get good or get out.

      ….unless your specialty is based on smoke and mirrors.

  • An Australian university recently censured marine scientist Paul Ridd for “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution,” because he questioned popular claims among environmentalists about coral reefs and global warming.
    Jct: Everybody else is in on the trick to hide the decline, why can’t you be more collegial and say it’s not declining too.

  • gary

    I am ashamed of my fellow scientists who lie. I had always thought that science was my true calling because it relied on data and experimentation and being skeptical of claims. Thank goodness this person stood up and questioned the information in the reports. I especially liked the comment about coral reef bleaching because of falling sea level – that had to excite some folks..

    • ipsd48

      Yeah. About 3 ft in the last 20,000 years.

  • Duke Silver

    There’s a good deal of lying going on in my own profession – most notably on the part of Pharma.

    Their fibs are most commonly considered “errors of omission” as in …. fewer subjects who took statins died of heart attack” … conveniently omitting the glaringly obvious – but more died from liver failure during the test.

    Bottom line – it’s OK to die…. just not from MI and oh, BTW, please buy my drug while you’re at it.

    Anyone questioning the status quo is immediately regarded as persona non grata so I can understand the pressure an honest researcher is under.

    • Brin Jenkins

      I was looking at wheel chairs 3 years ago, unable to get out of a bath or put my own socks and shoes on. A throwaway line by an oesteopath that my third vertebrae had slipped, and the muscles where not strong enough alarmed me. Statin research indicated a variety of problems so I kicked them into touch. I felt improved in a week, after six months considerably better and not fully recovered at the age of 80. Soon go next week living a fun life than a promise of 10 years in a wheel chair.

  • david russell

    97% of climate scientists agree…. if the data do not cooperate, the data should be ignored. Lying is ok if it’s in a good cause. The police are allowed to lie. Political lying is practically a prerequisite and universally expected. Truth is for losers. Our leaders know best. Thinking for yourself is treasonous. Remember:
    Freedom is slavery.
    War is Peace.
    Ignorance is strength.

    • yo neighbor

      …& boys are girls & girls are boys…

    • John

      And you’re a troll.

      • david russell

        You always get it wrong, don’t you?

        • John

          Sorry. You’re a troll anx a liar.

          Does it?
          Nope, it’s not science. It is an educational paper. Only scientists can write science papers. That’s how it works, you can’t lie about that. It’s not a Monckton chart, they merely used the accepted temp data. The every same data that you deny exists.
          Monckton is not a scientist, he is a misinformer and denier, similar to you. The two of you have no say in scientific knowledge. None. You’re not qualified, and you have no scientific credentials. None.

          Even your wiki link references this:
          http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
          How clear is that? Does that show a hiatus or warming?

          Further, the deniers educational paper states that there was warming the last 20 years and there will be warming to continue. The paper is under investigation because the peer review is suspect, i) only 3 people peer reviewed it, ii) they missed important claims masqueraded as facts, and iii) the deniers paid the builtin to publish it (Why did the bulletin change it’s name…). It’s clear that you are indeed very ignorant when it comes to any science matter.

          Maybe you should read the paper and stop embarrassing yourself.
          This graph from their paper clearly shows warming the last 20 years.
          https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_Fig1_HTML.gif

          Gee, how is that for egg on your face from your own denier cult.

          Now we have your own deniers against you and the actual temp data is against you. The IPCC is also against you. Do you now concede that you were wrong with your hiatus claim? I’ll give you this opportunity to retract your claim and spare you more embarrassment.

          You’re a liar.
          How much is big oil paying you to lie?

          • david russell

            Been drinking, Little Joseph?

            • John

              Big liar denier troll david. Is your mon still doing your friends?
              Is she doing big oil like you too?

              Does it?
              Nope, it’s not science. It is an educational paper. Only scientists can write science papers. That’s how it works, you can’t lie about that. It’s not a Monckton chart, they merely used the accepted temp data. The every same data that you deny exists.
              Monckton is not a scientist, he is a misinformer and denier, similar to you. The two of you have no say in scientific knowledge. None. You’re not qualified, and you have no scientific credentials. None.

              Even your wiki link references this:
              http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
              How clear is that? Does that show a hiatus or warming?

              Further, the deniers educational paper states that there was warming the last 20 years and there will be warming to continue. The paper is under investigation because the peer review is suspect, i) only 3 people peer reviewed it, ii) they missed important claims masqueraded as facts, and iii) the deniers paid the builtin to publish it (Why did the bulletin change it’s name…). It’s clear that you are indeed very ignorant when it comes to any science matter.

              Maybe you should read the paper and stop embarrassing yourself.
              This graph from their paper clearly shows warming the last 20 years.
              https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_Fig1_HTML.gif

              Gee, how is that for egg on your face from your own denier cult.

              Now we have your own deniers against you and the actual temp data is against you. The IPCC is also against you. Do you now concede that you were wrong with your hiatus claim? I’ll give you this opportunity to retract your claim and spare you more embarrassment.

              You’re a liar.
              How much is big oil paying you to lie?

              • david russell

                Yes, My mom is doing big oil, whatever that means. You are unhinged. Well, you deserve the miserable life you lead, Little Goebbels.

                • John

                  I know you’re mom is doing big oil. She’s dead but did them long ago and that’s where got came from. You’re still doing big oil, and they’re paying you to lie.
                  Your mom is the readon for your lies.

                  Let me remind you that you could not falsify ACC. You could not show huatus. Your own denier camp admits there was no hiatus.
                  You could not defend sng of your claims. But keep on lying. You think that repeati6 your lie will male it true. Your wrong. And I’ll remind you of that. It’s merely another one of your crank theories.

                  Does it?
                  Nope, it’s not science. It is an educational paper. Only scientists can write science papers. That’s how it works, you can’t lie about that. It’s not a Monckton chart, they merely used the accepted temp data. The every same data that you deny exists.
                  Monckton is not a scientist, he is a misinformer and denier, similar to you. The two of you have no say in scientific knowledge. None. You’re not qualified, and you have no scientific credentials. None.

                  Even your wiki link references this:
                  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
                  How clear is that? Does that show a hiatus or warming?

                  Further, the deniers educational paper states that there was warming the last 20 years and there will be warming to continue. The paper is under investigation because the peer review is suspect, i) only 3 people peer reviewed it, ii) they missed important claims masqueraded as facts, and iii) the deniers paid the builtin to publish it (Why did the bulletin change it’s name…). It’s clear that you are indeed very ignorant when it comes to any science matter.

                  Maybe you should read the paper and stop embarrassing yourself.
                  This graph from their paper clearly shows warming the last 20 years.
                  https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_Fig1_HTML.gif

                  Gee, how is that for egg on your face from your own denier cult.

                  Now we have your own deniers against you and the actual temp data is against you. The IPCC is also against you. Do you now concede that you were wrong with your hiatus claim? I’ll give you this opportunity to retract your claim and spare you more embarrassment.

                  You’re a liar.
                  How much is big oil paying you to lie?

        • John

          Your a liar, denier and a troll. There, better?

          Does it?
          Nope, it’s not science. It is an educational paper. Only scientists can write science papers. That’s how it works, you can’t lie about that. It’s not a Monckton chart, they merely used the accepted temp data. The every same data that you deny exists.
          Monckton is not a scientist, he is a misinformer and denier, similar to you. The two of you have no say in scientific knowledge. None. You’re not qualified, and you have no scientific credentials. None.

          Even your wiki link references this:
          http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
          How clear is that? Does that show a hiatus or warming?

          Further, the deniers educational paper states that there was warming the last 20 years and there will be warming to continue. The paper is under investigation because the peer review is suspect, i) only 3 people peer reviewed it, ii) they missed important claims masqueraded as facts, and iii) the deniers paid the builtin to publish it (Why did the bulletin change it’s name…). It’s clear that you are indeed very ignorant when it comes to any science matter.

          Maybe you should read the paper and stop embarrassing yourself.
          This graph from their paper clearly shows warming the last 20 years.
          https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_Fig1_HTML.gif

          Gee, how is that for egg on your face from your own denier cult.

          Now we have your own deniers against you and the actual temp data is against you. The IPCC is also against you. Do you now concede that you were wrong with your hiatus claim? I’ll give you this opportunity to retract your claim and spare you more embarrassment.

          You’re a liar.
          How much is big oil paying you to lie?

          • david russell

            You’re (not your) all that yourself. Plus you are a dope. Don’t understand irony, do you?

            • John

              You’re projecting again. I have evidence of your lies, denial and trolling.

              Does it?
              Nope, it’s not science. It is an educational paper. Only scientists can write science papers. That’s how it works, you can’t lie about that. It’s not a Monckton chart, they merely used the accepted temp data. The every same data that you deny exists.
              Monckton is not a scientist, he is a misinformer and denier, similar to you. The two of you have no say in scientific knowledge. None. You’re not qualified, and you have no scientific credentials. None.

              Even your wiki link references this:
              http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
              How clear is that? Does that show a hiatus or warming?

              Further, the deniers educational paper states that there was warming the last 20 years and there will be warming to continue. The paper is under investigation because the peer review is suspect, i) only 3 people peer reviewed it, ii) they missed important claims masqueraded as facts, and iii) the deniers paid the builtin to publish it (Why did the bulletin change it’s name…). It’s clear that you are indeed very ignorant when it comes to any science matter.

              Maybe you should read the paper and stop embarrassing yourself.
              This graph from their paper clearly shows warming the last 20 years.
              https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2/MediaObjects/11434_2014_699_Fig1_HTML.gif

              Gee, how is that for egg on your face from your own denier cult.

              Now we have your own deniers against you and the actual temp data is against you. The IPCC is also against you. Do you now concede that you were wrong with your hiatus claim? I’ll give you this opportunity to retract your claim and spare you more embarrassment.

              You’re a liar.
              How much is big oil paying you to lie?

      • Brin Jenkins

        John can you give me your own understanding of the C02 molecule in Global Warming please? What is the Mechanism here.

        • John

          Greenhouse effect. Did you oass grade 3 science class?

  • WordsMatter00

    Much of the world has decided that the truth doesn’t matter. Orwell has come to pass.

  • Dano2

    So one allegation in a Murdoch paper behind a paywall.

    Compelling indeed.

    Best,

    D

    • Sabretruthtiger

      So one inaccurate smear from behind an internet handle

      Compelling indeed

      Best,

      Someone who doesn’t support the evil new world order central banking wealth transfer, economic control scam known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, as opposed to the sociopathic evil people that do support it. They’re basically Hitler.

      • Dano2

        Copy the text so we can examine it. Otherwise not credible.

        /stuff we all learned in 7th grade

        Best,

        D

        • Sabretruthtiger

          Here, some reading for you as you obviously doubt the skeptics’ viewpoint.
          Critical thinking, something my generation learned in 7th grade 🙂

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

          Best

          S

          • Dano2

            Disinformation site! Drink!

            Best,

            D

        • Sabretruthtiger

          Another helpful link, something you can refer to when analysing the link between climate models and empirical data

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

          Best.

          S

          • Dano2

            Scientific method! Drink!

            And still can’t show inaccurate smear, so transparent deflection.

            Standard fare.

            Best,

            D

            • BigWaveDave

              You are a chicken. Your discus profile proves that.

              Because you are a chicken, you probably have a chicken brain, or maybe you are running around with your head cut off. It is difficult to tell from your posts.

              • Dano2

                Deep thought.

                Best,

                D

              • Brin Jenkins

                He never explains his beliefs! I suppose because he is unable.

  • ScienceABC123

    Translation: “The truth isn’t as important as the narrative.”

  • J.P. Katigbak

    The real problem with the scandalous ideological and philosophical beliefs in “environmentalism” is that pro-socialist ideologues keep doing dishonest and unscientific work that is a threat to various societies and economies around the world.

    Always be wary of the same ideologues. They will regret those errors! – J.P.K.

  • Huey51

    if the case for global warming climate change is so strong why the lies why the refusal to debate discuss why the name calling. Why do they have to tamper with data to try and get what they want out of it why the threat of lawsuits. If climate change is man made then lets have a discussion about it show me the proof.

    • yo neighbor

      If ya want more solar, wind investment ya just increase the cost of reliable, cheap oil, coal & natural gas… of course you know this… I just thought it worth mentioning as often as possible.

  • Real Green

    Of course global warming is caused by man…Piltdown Man. And the quacks who phony-up data that doesn’t agree with their political agenda, who threaten those who disagree with them are no more honest, professional scientists than those who sold snake oil medicine.

  • Sean

    And the inquisition starts.

    “You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthropogenic climate change.”