Day 2 - how can any citizen lose by having publicly funded institutions, that receive huge grants, undergo close scrutiny? If the scrutiny is refuted, the conclusions are stronger and more widely accepted. If the scrutiny uncovers flaws, the studies can be improved. If the scrutiny shows the studies are not needed, we can use the money for a more worthwhile cause.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/27/dr-peter-ridd-vs-james-cook-university-day-2-in-court/"Dr Jennifer Marohasy writes:
It is difficult when year-after-year a few of us explain that there is no substance to the many and varied – really endless – claims of imminent demise of The Great Barrier, and we are not believed. It is not that we lack evidence, but mostly our facts are considered too tedious … and our explanations are somehow bothersome because they don’t accord with the overwhelming consensus.
Having never wavered, and it is now going-on twenty-years, I was so pleased today to know that the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane is taking an interest in the detail: that Judge Salvatore Vasta wants to know about the quality assurance of The Great Barrier Reef research.
So far it appears there is no quality assurance. Zip. Zilch. None.
You might as well just make-it-all up, which is what many Australian scientists have being doing for years. As long as their executive summaries/abstracts are in accordance with the zeitgeist that says there is a terrible human-impact for which we must all be sorry, the scientists kept being funded – by the Australian tax payer.
Today, Judge Vasta asked how it could be that James Cook University – a recipient of so many billions of dollars over the years – could leave no stone unturned in its disciplinary process against Peter Ridd, while doing absolutely nothing to address his complaints about the lack of quality assurance of its research.
Not once in court today, or yesterday, was there any defense by the James Cook University Team of “the science” that Peter Ridd has been so critical of. The university is simply arguing that he doesn’t have a right to speak-out.
At one stage, it appeared that James Cook University were going to argue that Peter Ridd was unqualified to have an opinion on biological matters because he is a physicist, but so far, and after two days, James Cook University are not running that argument either. They are simply claiming that the university’s code of conduct prevents its employees from being un-collegial, and specifically Peter Ridd from being so critical of his colleagues and their research."
