JCU’s justification for sacking climate sceptic ‘mind-blowing’, court told

A climate change sceptic sacked by a Queensland university says the institution’s justification for his termination was “mind-blowing” and “implausible in the extreme”.

THE barrister for a James Cook University professor who was fired after publicly questioning his colleagues’ “deficient” and “misleading” environmental research says the university’s justification for the sacking is “mind-blowing” and “implausible in the extreme”.

Professor Peter Ridd had worked for JCU for 30 years when he was fired last May after he told journalists of his concerns about the quality assurance of research papers on the poor health of the Great Barrier Reef.

Katter to test JCU over Ridd sacking

Andrew Bolt: Sacking of scientist Peter Ridd stifles global warming debate

Climate change sceptic Peter Ridd claims JCU fired him to ‘shut him up’

Dr Ridd is suing the university in the Federal Court to get his job back, and his barrister Stuart Wood QC today argued JCU had wrongly used its code of conduct to justify the sacking, but failed to adhere to the legally binding enterprise agreement which allowed staff to express controversial or unpopular views.

The physics professor was first censured by the university in April 2016 after he emailed a newspaper journalist about his concerns “sensationalist” photos of the Reef were being distributed by authorities including the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

He said the before and after images showed the Reef quality in an area off the coast of Bowen declining but argued they were selectively taken to leave out the “spectacular” coral that was thriving in the same area.

Professor Peter Ridd (right) leaves court with his barrister Stuart Wood QC. Picture: Liam Kidston

“This is a relatively trivial though visually spectacular example of bad science on the Reef,” he wrote.

“The complaint was that there should be much more care taken when representing the photos to ensure the story is not based on sensationalism but on science,” Mr Woods told the court.

Dr Ridd also suggested a series of questions for the journalist to ask Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, about the veracity and quality of the research, saying he would likely “wriggle and squirm”.

Mr Wood told the court Prof Hughes complained to his boss Professor Chris Cocklin about the questioning of the science saying it attacked his integrity and that of the Centre of Excellence and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

“And it’s true it did attack their integrity because what it was saying is the science is not justifiable, there are problems with this and questions need to be asked,” Mr Wood said.

“Somehow instead of disagreement being a vehicle to obtain knowledge…disagreement seems to be a sin in itself.”

Mr Wood said there was “something wrong” with a university that took action against an academic who raised “honest concerns” that he thought research being released was wrong.

“Professor Cocklin as the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor, instead of commencing an investigation should have said why don’t you answer his questions,” Mr Wood said.

But Professor Ridd was instead censured for the criticism with his superiors ruling he had breached the university’s code of conduct.

“If the work of the university, if the research of the university is in the honest opinion of an academic of the university one that is deserving of criticism, then you have to attack that research and damage the reputation of the university that’s your obligation as an academic,” Mr Wood said.

“Your obligation is not to protect the reputation of the university, your obligation is to search for truth in a disinterested manner.

“These are legitimate questions about quality assurance of the science underpinning public monies on the Great Barrier Reef that have never been answered.”

In November 2017, Dr Ridd was again censured by the university after he made comments about Reef research on Sky News.

Dr Ridd said he was sceptical of research warning the Reef was in dire health due to global warming, saying his own research showed the same coral species thriving in the warmer climates in areas including Papua New Guinea and Thailand.

He again raised concerns about peer reviewed papers saying people would “laugh” at the effort that went into the reviews, saying it was usually one or two other scientists reading of the paper like a subeditor rather than a group of researchers properly testing the science.

Prof Ridd was then sacked by the university in April last year over claims he had further violated the code of conduct.

Mr Wood compared the university’s investigation to a coercive “star chamber” procedure in which Dr Ridd was banned from telling even his wife what was happening.

The barrister said the university claimed Dr Ridd should not have made comments because they weren’t related to “his field of competence”, claims Mr Wood slammed as implausible in the extreme”.

“It’s an incredible defence from a university which he’s been involved with for forty years,” he said.

“It’s mind blowing.”

The trial continues in the Federal Court.