The whole “global warming” nonsense (hint: cooling is more credible) really is remarkable. Time and again when I bring this up with my low-information friends, I’m told (among other talking points to be sure) how scientists by and large agree the world is burning up into a cinder unless we do something about it right now. The fact that it’s been 20 straight years of being told the ice caps will be gone in 10 years unless we do something doesn’t seem to help things.
Anyway, the reason why scientists “agree” on global warming to any extent is because they are mostly employed by the government, at least indirectly in our higher education system. On many campuses, if you dispute the narrative, you’ll quickly find yourself off campus in short order, and the people kicking you off don’t see any problem in doing so even as they shout how they support freedom of expression.
These incidents never make the mainstream news, but allow me to highlight one:
Physics Professor Awarded $800,000 Compensation After University Fires Him Unlawfully for Views on Great Barrier Reef
Global warming is blamed for pretty much everything bad that happens, of course, the better to scare people into supporting it. The Great Barrier Reef, a massive coral ecosystem near Australia certainly has its problems (like all coral systems, and I rather suspect polluting the ocean is the main factor, but I digress), but this one professor dared to dispute that global warming was the issue.
(Incidentally, my favorite “it’s global warming’s fault!” accusation concerned the die-off of horseshoe crabs, whose populations have dropped off sharply recently. Although this 400 million year old species has endured much hotter and much colder climates than today, global warming is still blamed for hurting them. It’s nuts.)
So, this professor disputes the latest blame being laid on the latest nonsense. Was he professional about it?
“There is perhaps no ecosystem on Earth better able to cope with rising temperatures than the Great Barrier Reef,” Ridd wrote in the publication. “Irrespective of one’s views about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the climate, it is remarkable that the Great Barrier Reef has become the ecosystem, more than almost all others, that is used to illustrate and claim environmental disaster from the modest warming we have seen over the course of the last century.”
Do note that he’s willing to concede there’s been some warming. He also criticizes how the research is being done:
“I have highlighted just a few examples of questionable science—the list is long,” Ridd continues, adding that in his view, current scientific practices and institutions are unreliable and in need of reform.
There is a huge, and I mean gargantuan problem in “science” today, and I’m not just talking about pseudo-subjects like gender studies, or qualitative subjects like psychology. Even “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry have a reproducibility problem: the study can be peer reviewed and published, but can’t be reproduced when someone else tries it. Well over half of peer reviewed studies do not get the same results when someone else tries them.
Seriously, at this point, when you hear the results of a scientific study, you may as well flip a coin to determine if you should believe it.
So, the professor isn’t exactly saying much here when he says what we’re doing in science is “unreliable”—flipping a coin is as unreliable as it gets, and produces more reliable results today. That’s demented.
His university responded as most universities do when a professor disputes the narrative: they fired him. Yes, he had those job “protections” you supposedly have as faculty, but they’re worth very little when you try to work through the kangaroo campus court system.
The professor wisely takes his complaint to court. How’d that work out?
In a judgment (pdf) issued on Sept. 6, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled to award Ridd “the sum of 125,000 AUD [$82,000] by way of pecuniary penalty” plus “1,094,214.47 AUD [$750,397.39] as compensation for loss” that the former James Cook University employee suffered at the hands of the educational institution.
While I’m happy for the professor, the gentle reader should take little comfort in that that other universities will start behaving—I’ve seen time and again that despite these kinds of judgments, university “leaders” won’t change their ways. They don’t pay the price, you see, the university does, and that usually just means the cost is passed on to the taxpayers to pay for their continued supply of misinformation.
A quick overview of just how far off the rails the university was in firing the professor:
In its decision, the Federal Circuit Court listed a total of 18 “contraventions” of legal acts that the university had in April been found guilty of, including imposing a gag order on Ridd “to keep the disciplinary process confidential;” trying to prevent him from making jokes about his ordeal by directing him to refrain from “make[ing] any comment or engag[ing] in any conduct that directly or indirectly trivialises, satires or parodies the University taking disciplinary action against [him];” and, finally, firing him.
To further reinforce the point about how the leaders won’t learn anything from this:
“The fact that JCU has not removed either of their press statements (despite my judgement) is almost tantamount to an attempt to ensure that Professor Ridd does not obtain employment in this field,” Judge Vasta noted.
The judge further suggested the university’s conduct bordered on “paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness” and Ridd must have felt he was being persecuted.
The professor’s career in academia is ruined, he’ll be basically unemployable, so the massive judgement is quite fair. Meanwhile, the “leaders” of the university who have destroyed this man for daring to question the narrative? They’ll continue to reap massive pay and benefits, and I promise the gentle reader not a one of them will be fired for their clear and documented transgression, and all will continue to rise up through the ranks in the higher education system.
Honest, there’s a real reason why our scientists agree to whatever the government wants them to say.