This is how to build the consensus climate: a scientific skeptic complaint to your university by silenciarle

The environmentalism and, in particular, the alarmism of climate change has become a new inquisition may sound far-fetched, but what has happened to the australian Peter Ridd disagreeing publicly with the consensus, seems to confirm this. The professor of Physics at James Cook University is highly critical of what it considers to be unjustified alarm about the future of the Great Barrier Reef, the huge coral reef more than 2,000 km long, visible even from the space and is paying the price.

Ridd believes that most of the studies on the reef do not have a scientific support, solid and replicable and has struggled for years to improve the quality of marine research, which deemed that there is a logical reason for incentives (if there are no problems, there will be less money for the scientists) tend to be alarmist. In the summer of 2017 appeared in a segment televised on Sky News explaining that coral bleaching is not a catastrophe irreversible and compares it with the fires in the forests, that end up recovering and that the coral adapts to very different temperatures and conditions, whether or not there is climate change.

The scientist believes that although obviously a percentage more or less of the coral may die in a given time for various reasons, whether or not they are natural, usually recover in more or less a decade to the initial levels. And that the greater part of the damage “never seen” the coral that report had not been seen before because until a very few decades are not studied thoroughly and there are no reliable data that can be used for long-term studies prior to 1986. Considers that it is possible that there is a crisis and that the Great Barrier Reef will have serious problems, but that the current studies that have been done are of such poor quality that it is impossible to secure it.

In the television committed a sin much worse, according to his university: to criticize other scientific institutions. “No longer can we continue to trust in scientific organizations such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science, or even in things like the Centre for Excellence for Studies on Coral Reef ARC… The science is not being properly inspected, tested, or replicated and it’s a shame,” he said. For this reason, the university accused him of “lack of collegiality” with comments “is not respectful nor courteous” toward those institutions, what seems to be an indictment of ad hoc to prevent criticism among scientists that considered drawbacks. As punishment he was forbidden to continue criticizing in public to other scientists and agencies, and also he was forbidden to mention to anyone, including his wife, such order to silenciarle.

Ridd not sat still and looked for ways of fighting against this order, which led to the university to search through your emails in search of evidence that he had informed third parties to be able to fire you. When the teacher reacted and took to the courts had rejected the dismissal, but under the condition that it not criticize publicly the work of other scientists. Given the circumstance that the vice-chancellor of the University, also directs the Australian Institute of Marine Science…

This is not the first warning of this kind that you receive. In 2016 also will put on notice for “not respecting the reputations of other colleagues to investigate for himself an area of the Great Barrier, considering that two institutions had published a few historical photos from their point of view were misleading to imply that global warming had caused changes which were probably due to other reasons.

The professor has had to make a cuestación to pay for their complaint against the university to allow her to continue criticizing other scientists and institutions. Has achieved the necessary funds in less than two days, which is a relief. But from a public university wants to censor that way to a researcher skeptic gives us an idea of how they manage to form the consensus of scientists that speak to us as irrefutable evidence of the solid foundation of the scientific theory of climate change are catastrophic caused by man. Of course, if you prevent criticism, it will seem that you will not criticize anyone. But perhaps Galileo would have found questionable these methods.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of