climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Environmentalism’s Radical Next Generation Is Already Here

Written by Ben Pile on .
Posted in Latest news This past week , a new group calling itself Beyond Politics ( BP ) threw buckets of bright-pink paint at the entrances to the London offices of four global NGOs , including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace .
“ We have no words to describe our disgust , ” messages left at the scene told their targets .
“ We accuse you of appeasing radical evil.
” BP accuses NGOs of not taking the issue of climate change seriously enough .
“ In the face of this monstrosity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s meaningful.
” This somewhat pathetic green-on-green hostility has yielded little media attention , but it illustrates the global environmental movement ’ s bizarre and longstanding contradictions .
BP and its petty vandalism were the brainchildren of Extinction Rebellion ( XR ) cofounder Roger Hallam , who got himself excommunicated from his own movement after he told German newspaper DieZeit that the Holocaust had been “ almost a normal event .
.
.
just another fuckery in human history.
” Hallam ’ s confidence was not dented by exile and charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he had seemingly driven an environmental movement from a standing start to a global concern in just a matter of months .
Motivated by “ the indescribable suffering and death of billions of people , ” Hallam now demands that big NGOs either “ drive your organizations into a final battle with this genocidal regime ” or “ disband yourselves.
” Though Hallam is credited with cofounding XR , he forgets the role of money in its ascendancy .
It was through the generosity of , among others , billionaire hedge-fund manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , legal costs , and its protesters ’ generous per diems .
Though populated by self-identifying system-crashing anti-capitalists , XR suited Hohn ’ s £30-billion portfolio , which he uses to threaten companies such as BlackRock and Moodies with “ divestment ” should they fail to conform to green diktats .
Hallam is right about one thing .
Green NGOs have developed cozy relationships with the establishment .
Even XR , which managed to bring only a few thousand people out into London ’ s streets , nonetheless succeeded in shutting down those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation of the Metropolitan Police and the glowing , uncritical support of London mayor Sadiq Khan .
Within a year , XR was invited by MPs to give evidence to committees at the very government departments that its protests had shut down .
Secretary of State for the Environment Michael Gove held a conference with the group to discuss its demands .
Parliament declared a “ climate emergency ” and convened a “ Citizens Assembly ” to hasten the government on a path toward its newly stated “ net zero ” ambition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was this possible ?
XR has a high profile and cash in the bank , but it is an organization with just a few thousand members , with unpopular aims—bringing down governments and dismantling industrial , democratic , and capitalist society .
It is the close relationship between radical environmentalism and the government that better accounts for XR ’ s success than any power XR generated for itself .
XR succeeded not because it had mobilized the British public but because it used cash from philanthropic funds to reanimate a small army of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with well-established strategic and communications teams and extant connections to media and government .
It was ever thus .
Environmentalism has long been lucrative for the well-connected , who are able to tap into streams of cash from philanthropic foundations to service corporate social-responsibility virtue-signaling PR and government propaganda—big business , in other words .
Very big .
The blueprint for this pact was established in the 1980s when the United Nations appointed Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland to the World Commission on Environment and Development ( WCED ) .
Brundtland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future , laid out the framework for a “ sustainable ” global political order .
In Brundtland ’ s schema , ordinary voters have no role in the body politic of the global ecological Utopia .
In place of the democratic competencies of national governments , NGOs will serve as the real intermediaries between supranational governance , industry , finance , and science on the one hand , and the hoi polloi on the other .
Thus , whereas green NGOs were once seen as single-issue campaigns or charities , they are today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quid pro quo has required NGOs to sustain two aspects .
First , they must act like dignified members of global society , able to mingle politely with royalty , corporations , billionaires , dignitaries , and despots .
Second , street-level environmentalists need to act as would a popular movement – a task which , despite the green movement ’ s half-century of history , it has not yet achieved .
Hence , green activism is better characterized by high-profile , media-friendly stunts and shrill , alarmist rhetoric than by representative membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This more performative role , however , has created a tension and a liability for the movement : the believers created by the unchallenged narrative of imminent doom are themselves left out of the cozy insiders ’ compact .
Earlier this year , Michael Moore and director Geoff Gibbs ’ s film , Planet of the Humans , blew the green movement ’ s cover in the political mainstream .
The film argued that , as radical as high-profile greens pretend to be , they are in fact the placemen of billionaires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy turns out to be at least as environmentally destructive as any other extractive industry , and it requires the public—rather than the venture-capitalist backers of radical environmental movements—to provide subsidies for the demolition of forests and natural landscapes .
It is because the coordinates of the climate change debate are so easily turned upside-down that the green movement turns on its own with aggression usually reserved for its putative enemies .
Moore and Gibbs ’ s film was swiftly denounced as an abomination—a work of “ far-right , ” “ white supremacist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Through its hostility to debate and dissent , environmentalism has spawned a growing movement of those whom it can not accommodate and can not answer : fire-and-brimstone ecological zealots that no policy will ever satisfy .
Fearmongering , it turns out , is a Pandora ’ s box .
Pink paint is just the start .
Coming over the horizon are Greta Thunberg ’ s contemporaries : an entire generation whose sense of the future is being shaped by ecological propaganda .
What will this next generation do ?
They can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many in the first generation of environmentalists were , with jobs in eco-consultancies or NGOs to service the interests of hedge-fund managers .
But they have learned from that generation ’ s teachers , scientists , and governments to despise democracy .
And they have learned that the way to assert themselves is to take to the streets—not to give voice to carefully articulated grievances but to perform infantile tantrums .

Written by Ben Pile on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
This past week, a new group calling itself Beyond Politics (BP) threw buckets of bright-pink paint at the entrances to the London offices of four global NGOs, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.
“We have no words to describe our disgust,” messages left at the scene told their targets. “We accuse you of appeasing radical evil.”
BP accuses NGOs of not taking the issue of climate change seriously enough. “In the face of this monstrosity, what have you done? Fuck all that’s meaningful.”
This somewhat pathetic green-on-green hostility has yielded little media attention, but it illustrates the global environmental movement’s bizarre and longstanding contradictions.
BP and its petty vandalism were the brainchildren of Extinction Rebellion (XR) cofounder Roger Hallam, who got himself excommunicated from his own movement after he told German newspaper DieZeit that the Holocaust had been “almost a normal event . . . just another fuckery in human history.”
Hallam’s confidence was not dented by exile and charges of anti-Semitism, however. After all, he had seemingly driven an environmental movement from a standing start to a global concern in just a matter of months.
Motivated by “the indescribable suffering and death of billions of people,” Hallam now demands that big NGOs either “drive your organizations into a final battle with this genocidal regime” or “disband yourselves.”
Though Hallam is credited with cofounding XR, he forgets the role of money in its ascendancy. It was through the generosity of, among others, billionaire hedge-fund manager Christopher Hohn that XR could afford offices, legal costs, and its protesters’ generous per diems.
Though populated by self-identifying system-crashing anti-capitalists, XR suited Hohn’s £30-billion portfolio, which he uses to threaten companies such as BlackRock and Moodies with “divestment” should they fail to conform to green diktats.
Hallam is right about one thing. Green NGOs have developed cozy relationships with the establishment.
Even XR, which managed to bring only a few thousand people out into London’s streets, nonetheless succeeded in shutting down those streets, thanks to the nearly full cooperation of the Metropolitan Police and the glowing, uncritical support of London mayor Sadiq Khan.
Within a year, XR was invited by MPs to give evidence to committees at the very government departments that its protests had shut down.
Secretary of State for the Environment Michael Gove held a conference with the group to discuss its demands. Parliament declared a “climate emergency” and convened a “Citizens Assembly” to hasten the government on a path toward its newly stated “net zero” ambition.
All as XR had demanded.
How was this possible? XR has a high profile and cash in the bank, but it is an organization with just a few thousand members, with unpopular aims—bringing down governments and dismantling industrial, democratic, and capitalist society.
It is the close relationship between radical environmentalism and the government that better accounts for XR’s success than any power XR generated for itself.
XR succeeded not because it had mobilized the British public but because it used cash from philanthropic funds to reanimate a small army of surplus activists as an off-the-shelf PR outfit, with well-established strategic and communications teams and extant connections to media and government.
It was ever thus. Environmentalism has long been lucrative for the well-connected, who are able to tap into streams of cash from philanthropic foundations to service corporate social-responsibility virtue-signaling PR and government propaganda—big business, in other words. Very big.
The blueprint for this pact was established in the 1980s when the United Nations appointed Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
Brundtland’s 1987 report, Our Common Future, laid out the framework for a “sustainable” global political order.
In Brundtland’s schema, ordinary voters have no role in the body politic of the global ecological Utopia. In place of the democratic competencies of national governments, NGOs will serve as the real intermediaries between supranational governance, industry, finance, and science on the one hand, and the hoi polloi on the other.
Thus, whereas green NGOs were once seen as single-issue campaigns or charities, they are today recast as “civil society.”
The quid pro quo has required NGOs to sustain two aspects. First, they must act like dignified members of global society, able to mingle politely with royalty, corporations, billionaires, dignitaries, and despots.
Second, street-level environmentalists need to act as would a popular movement – a task which, despite the green movement’s half-century of history, it has not yet achieved.
Hence, green activism is better characterized by high-profile, media-friendly stunts and shrill, alarmist rhetoric than by representative membership organizations with coherent constitutions and founding objectives.
This more performative role, however, has created a tension and a liability for the movement: the believers created by the unchallenged narrative of imminent doom are themselves left out of the cozy insiders’ compact.
Earlier this year, Michael Moore and director Geoff Gibbs’s film, Planet of the Humans, blew the green movement’s cover in the political mainstream.
The film argued that, as radical as high-profile greens pretend to be, they are in fact the placemen of billionaires and corporate interests.
Moreover, green energy turns out to be at least as environmentally destructive as any other extractive industry, and it requires the public—rather than the venture-capitalist backers of radical environmental movements—to provide subsidies for the demolition of forests and natural landscapes.
It is because the coordinates of the climate change debate are so easily turned upside-down that the green movement turns on its own with aggression usually reserved for its putative enemies.
Moore and Gibbs’s film was swiftly denounced as an abomination—a work of “far-right,” “white supremacist” fossil-fuel propaganda that must be censored.
Through its hostility to debate and dissent, environmentalism has spawned a growing movement of those whom it cannot accommodate and cannot answer: fire-and-brimstone ecological zealots that no policy will ever satisfy. Fearmongering, it turns out, is a Pandora’s box.
Pink paint is just the start. Coming over the horizon are Greta Thunberg’s contemporaries: an entire generation whose sense of the future is being shaped by ecological propaganda.
What will this next generation do? They can’t all be bought off, as many in the first generation of environmentalists were, with jobs in eco-consultancies or NGOs to service the interests of hedge-fund managers.
But they have learned from that generation’s teachers, scientists, and governments to despise democracy.
And they have learned that the way to assert themselves is to take to the streets—not to give voice to carefully articulated grievances but to perform infantile tantrums.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Climate Alarmism Setting So-Called Arctic Records

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Stories claiming global warming is setting all-time heat and wildfire records in Siberia and the Arctic continue to dominate media attention this week .
Objective scientific evidence , however , shows the summer has brought similar heat and fire outbreaks to the Arctic many times before .
On July 25 , Voice of America published an article titled , “ Siberian Heat Wave and Melting Arctic Sea Ice Indicate Climate Change , Scientists Say.
” Had the writers of these stories done just a little research they could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Arctic have been common throughout history .
Scientists have documented Arctic temperatures as high or even higher during the early part of the 20th century .
Concerning fires , numerous peer-reviewed journal articles , using ice cores and tree ring data show the Arctic region has warmed , dried , and , burned numerous times throughout the past 2,000 years , and likely before .
A 2016 article in the journal Regional Environmental Change discusses how large forests in Siberia have been shaped by fire throughout the centuries .
The authors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fire in Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia , report data from tree rings and lake deposits show Siberian forests have long been “ shaped by complex interactions of climate , forest fires , insect outbreaks , and humans.
” So , fires in the Arctic circle are not historically unusual , and neither , the data shows , are heatwaves .
In a recent Climate Realism article , meteorologist and Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts references a 2013 Associated Press article that stated , “ …it was 100 degrees on June 27 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alaska ] according to official records of the National Weather Service .
Records date back to 1904.
” Watts also notes that the 100-degree reading in Verkhoyansk , Siberia , in late June of this year , topped Verkhoyansk ’ s previous record ( 37.3C / 99.1F ) by just a single degree .
Indeed , NASA data show that hottest June on record in Verkhoyansk remains June 1912 , which was more than 100 years of global warming ago .
Moreover , the highest average temperature in Verkhoyansk for an entire summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 years ago .
Media alarmism about the Arctic climate may be at an all-time high , but Arctic temperatures certainly are not .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Stories claiming global warming is setting all-time heat and wildfire records in Siberia and the Arctic continue to dominate media attention this week.
Objective scientific evidence, however, shows the summer has brought similar heat and fire outbreaks to the Arctic many times before.
On July 25, Voice of America published an article titled, “Siberian Heat Wave and Melting Arctic Sea Ice Indicate Climate Change, Scientists Say.”
A July 27 headline in Science Focus proclaimed, “Climate change: Arctic heatwave temperatures reach possible all-time high.”
Had the writers of these stories done just a little research they could have easily found summer heatwaves and fires in the Arctic have been common throughout history.
Scientists have documented Arctic temperatures as high or even higher during the early part of the 20th century.
Concerning fires, numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, using ice cores and tree ring data show the Arctic region has warmed, dried, and, burned numerous times throughout the past 2,000 years, and likely before.
A 2016 article in the journal Regional Environmental Change discusses how large forests in Siberia have been shaped by fire throughout the centuries.
The authors of a chapter in the 1995 book, Fire in Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia, report data from tree rings and lake deposits show Siberian forests have long been “shaped by complex interactions of climate, forest fires, insect outbreaks, and humans.”
So, fires in the Arctic circle are not historically unusual, and neither, the data shows, are heatwaves.
In a recent Climate Realism article, meteorologist and Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts references a 2013 Associated Press article that stated, “…it was 100 degrees on June 27, 1915, in Fort Yukon, [Alaska] according to official records of the National Weather Service. Records date back to 1904.”
Watts also notes that the 100-degree reading in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, in late June of this year, topped Verkhoyansk’s previous record (37.3C / 99.1F) by just a single degree.
Indeed, NASA data show that hottest June on record in Verkhoyansk remains June 1912, which was more than 100 years of global warming ago.
Moreover, the highest average temperature in Verkhoyansk for an entire summer season remains 1917, also more than 100 years ago.
Media alarmism about the Arctic climate may be at an all-time high, but Arctic temperatures certainly are not.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Biden Echoes Far-Left ‘Great Reset’ Socialist Agenda

Written by Robert Kraychik on .
Posted in Latest news Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign is linked to and echoing the messaging of a left-wing globalist agenda branded as the “ Great Reset , ” said Justin Haskins , editorial director and research fellow at the Heartland Institute .
Haskins wrote of the “ Great Reset ” in a column published on Thursday at Fox Business : A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t endorsed the movement , his ties to it are growing as he changes his long-held policy views to appease the far-left .
While it hasn ’ t gained widespread attention , the Great Reset is perhaps the biggest danger to capitalism and individual rights since the collapse of the Soviet Union .
“ The ‘ Great Reset ’ is sort of like Agenda 21 on steroids , ” said Haskins .
“ Essentially , it ’ s this global movement among some of the most powerful leaders in government , business , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … push the reset button on the entire global economy and replace it with something that they call ‘ stakeholder capitalism , ’ which is essentially socialism.
” The “ Great Reset ” is an attempt to rebrand socialist ideology , Haskins noted .
“ [ It is ] just another … variation of socialism , ” Haskins stated .
“ It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory , and so I understand why some people might be a little bit hesitant at first.
” Advocates for the “ Great Reset ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multistate institutions , remarked Haskins .
He wrote of an event hosted by the World Economic Forum in support of the socialist pursuit : Klaus Schwab , founder and executive chairman of World Economic Forum , called for global subscription to the “ Great Reset.
” “ Every country , from the United States to China , must participate , and every industry , from oil and gas to tech , must be transformed .
In short , we need a ‘ Great Reset ’ of capitalism.
” Supporters of the “ Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State John Kerry , with the latter joining Biden ’ s presidential campaign as an adviser on “ climate change ” policies alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) .
An official website for the “ Great Reset ” frames the proposal as a response to the coronavirus outbreak , protests and unrest driven by Black Lives Matter and Antifa , and references to “ climate change.
” The “ COVID-19 ” crisis requires new methods of governance predicated on increasing centralization of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Great Reset ” website , which claims that “ inconsistencies ” and “ contradictions ” across “ multiple systems ” are to be solved through increased consolidation .
“ We have to decarbonize the economy , ” declared Schwab , framing carbon dioxide emissions as problematic and destructive to the planet in accordance with the narrative of anthropogenic global warming .
Schwab linked COVID-19 , “ racism , ” and “ climate change ” as pretexts for new world order : “ The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cohesion , the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness .
Nor can we turn our backs on the evils of racism and discrimination .
… COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
” Haskins explained , “ They want to completely rework the entire global economy and replace it with a much more centralized form of socialism that would not collectively own all of the property or all of the means of production — they ’ re not Marxist socialists — but they would control the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly through a vast regulatory state , and also through a huge multi-trillion dollar ecosocialist campaign , kind of similar to the Green New Deal and other things that we hear from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria , Ocasio-Cortez .
”

Written by Robert Kraychik on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign is linked to and echoing the messaging of a left-wing globalist agenda branded as the “Great Reset,” said Justin Haskins, editorial director and research fellow at the Heartland Institute.
Haskins wrote of the “Great Reset” in a column published on Thursday at Fox Business:
A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world. While former Vice President Joe Biden hasn’t endorsed the movement, his ties to it are growing as he changes his long-held policy views to appease the far-left. While it hasn’t gained widespread attention, the Great Reset is perhaps the biggest danger to capitalism and individual rights since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“The ‘Great Reset’ is sort of like Agenda 21 on steroids,” said Haskins. “Essentially, it’s this global movement among some of the most powerful leaders in government, business, in activism all over the world to … push the reset button on the entire global economy and replace it with something that they call ‘stakeholder capitalism,’ which is essentially socialism.”
The “Great Reset” is an attempt to rebrand socialist ideology, Haskins noted.
“[It is] just another … variation of socialism,” Haskins stated. “It sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, and so I understand why some people might be a little bit hesitant at first.”
Advocates for the “Great Reset” include “really powerful people” at multistate institutions, remarked Haskins. He wrote of an event hosted by the World Economic Forum in support of the socialist pursuit:
Supporters and attendees of the meeting included Prince Charles; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; Ajay Banga, CEO of MasterCard; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; and Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, among many others.
Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of World Economic Forum, called for global subscription to the “Great Reset.”
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
Supporters of the “Great Reset” include Democrat politicians such as former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State John Kerry, with the latter joining Biden’s presidential campaign as an adviser on “climate change” policies alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
An official website for the “Great Reset” frames the proposal as a response to the coronavirus outbreak, protests and unrest driven by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, and references to “climate change.”
The “COVID-19” crisis requires new methods of governance predicated on increasing centralization of political power and control, according to the “Great Reset” website, which claims that “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” across “multiple systems” are to be solved through increased consolidation.
“We have to decarbonize the economy,” declared Schwab, framing carbon dioxide emissions as problematic and destructive to the planet in accordance with the narrative of anthropogenic global warming.
Schwab linked COVID-19, “racism,” and “climate change” as pretexts for new world order: “The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. Nor can we turn our backs on the evils of racism and discrimination. … COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
Haskins explained, “They want to completely rework the entire global economy and replace it with a much more centralized form of socialism that would not collectively own all of the property or all of the means of production — they’re not Marxist socialists — but they would control the economy through a variety of different means, mostly through a vast regulatory state, and also through a huge multi-trillion dollar ecosocialist campaign, kind of similar to the Green New Deal and other things that we hear from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria, Ocasio-Cortez.”
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Scientist Says Greater Quality Assurance Needed In Reef Science

Written by James Nason on .
Posted in Latest news Scientist Dr. Peter Ridd has become widely known in recent years for his outspoken views on the quality of science used to underpin new water quality controls on agriculture in the Great Barrier Reef catchment .
He has worked on the Great Barrier Reef since 1984 at the Australian Institute of Marine Science ( AIMS ) and at James Cook University ( JCU ) , with his research appearing in over 100 publications in international journals mostly relating to Great Barrier Reef and marine applications .
In 2018 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stating that the two GBR science institutions were producing results that are untrustworthy due to insufficient quality assurance protocols .
Last year , the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found Dr. Ridd ’ s sacking by JCU was unlawful and awarded him $ 1.2m .
But that decision was overturned on appeal by the full bench of the Federal Circuit Court last week which found JCU had acted lawfully in dismissing Dr. Ridd .
The case has become a lightning rod for debate in Australia over freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a public hearing in Brisbane for a Senate Committee inquiry into the regulation of farm practices in Queensland impacting water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef .
The regulations affect cattle grazing , cane farming , and dryland cropping business across 42.4 million hectares of Queensland and commit each industry to achieve minimum water quality targets by 2025 ( See map left ) .
The Queensland Department of Science and Energy in its submission told the inquiry a large evidence-base exists demonstrating the impact of water quality from the adjacent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrier Reef ( GBR ) .
“ Summaries of the thousands of peer-reviewed , published scientific papers that provide this supporting evidence have been periodically undertaken since 2003 with bipartisan support , as the underpinning evidence base for the joint Reef Water Quality Protection Plans , now Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022 developed in collaboration between the Australian and Queensland Governments.
” It adds that its reef science is proven , supported by rigorous processes including peer review , independent expert reviews , and audits .
“ The evidence is strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusions drawn from the science are sound , ” it says .
In his submission to the inquiry , Dr. Ridd maintains there is a serious concern that much of the evidence claiming adverse effects of agriculture on the Great Barrier Reef “ is highly questionable.
” He believes a full audit of the evidence relating to the potential effect of agriculture on the GBR should be carried out by a group of independent scientists not attached to government institutions working on the GBR .
Dr. Ridd emphasizes his independence , stating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salary from the oil , coal , sugar , beef or tobacco interests , despite being often accused of having done so .
His submission states that while he worked at JCU and AIMS , all of his salary and research funding was directed through those institutions , and he did not receive anything but his regular institutional salary .
It notes that since his sacking from JCU in 2018 he is now working , without payment , to improve Quality Assurance systems in science .
Dr. Ridd , who is a physicist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher standard of quality assurance than currently exists , referring to experts who have spoken more broadly about similar concerns with existing scientific standards around the world .
This included Richard Horton , editor of The Lancet , who in 2015 wrote that : “ The case against science is straightforward : much of the scientific literature , perhaps half , may simply be untrue .
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes , tiny effects , invalid exploratory analyses , and flagrant conflicts of interest , together with an obsession for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science has taken a turn towards darkness ” .
A 2017 study in Britain suggested science is facing a “ reproducibility crisis ” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist ’ s experiments .
Last year Australia ’ s Chief Scientist Professor Alan Finkel lamented the “ significant number of papers that are of poor quality , and should never have made it through to publication ” .
Dr. Ridd said the peer review system on its own is not adequate or effective .
‘ Dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and checking ’ were essential to science , but didn ’ t happen anywhere near as much as they should , he said .
“ That is why I am suggesting we need some sort of extra quality assurance mechanism to check the reef science .
“ And , I ask , why would you not want to do that ?
” Scientific principles such as Newton ’ s Law of Motion were “ five-star science , ” “ something you can rely on with your life ” because they had been “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peer review was closer to “ two-star science , ” he said .
There was a need to get the level of replication “ as high as we can.
” In his 36-year-career of work in the Great Barrier Reef , Dr. Ridd co-invented the first instruments capable of taking long-term measurements of sediment on the reef .
His submission states his group “ has done more measurements of sediment ( mud ) concentrations near reefs than any other group ” .
During 30 minutes of questions from Senators yesterday , he provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing scientific consensus on reef science .
While these are discussed in detail in his submission , some of the concerns he discussed included : Coral growth rate data : Dr. Ridd said he has raised concerns with the Australian Institute of Marine Science ( AIMS ) about its claim there has been a halving of GBR coral cover since the 1960s .
He said this is “ the only bit of data ” that supposedly shows this halving of coral , but said AIMS has refused to release the original data so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farms on the reef : “ If you look at sediments , there is no sediment out on the Great Barrier Reef .
I can take you to the GBR , I ’ d love to take you to the GBR , you name the reef , and we will go there and I will demonstrate there is no sediment from farms on the great barrier reef .
That is it , right , that is the data and that decides whether it is right or wrong.
” 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reef : “ In my view , there is no proof that agriculture has any significant effect on the reef whatsoever , ” Dr. Ridd said .
He said agricultural pesticides were “ in such low concentrations ” that on 97 percent of the GBR “ they don ’ t even bother measuring it , because the concentrations are so low.
” He said concentrations of pesticides inshore and in the rivers and wetlands “ can undoubtedly get to high levels.
” However , he said , “ all the measurements except for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mouth of the Pioneer River , except for that one example , there have been no measurements on the GBR of pesticides that reach anywhere near a harmful level , so we know that pesticides are not damaging the coral.
” Fertilizer produces algal blooms : “ The farmers are accused of all the fertilizer-producing algal blooms , but what is ignored and you won ’ t see it in the consensus statement is that there are 100 times more nutrients that cycle across the seabed than comes down all the rivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop in the bucket the effect of the farmers on the GBR .
Now that is not my work , that is by Miles Furness from the AIMS .
20 years of his life was devoted ultimately to that conclusion.
” Cyclone impacts : “ A cyclone like Yasi probably re-suspended 500 million cubic meters of mud , this is hundreds of times more than what is going to come down from the rivers… Cyclones kill more coral than anything else , they will resuspend a layer of sediment up to 30cm deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re like bulldozers that go through.
” Muddy bottom reefs : Questioned by Qld LNP Senator Gerard Rennick about “ muddy bottom reefs , ” Dr. Ridd said these are specifically to do with inshore reefs .
“ We have a huge number of measurements on the muddy reef , we know from the geological evidence that these have been muddy for thousands of years because the mud around them has been laid down by rivers over thousands of years… the scientists talk about these inshore reefs and they never tell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very small fraction of the coral that are even muddy at all.
” 40-50 percent coral loss across the entire reef : LNP Senator Susan McDonald said evidence given earlier in the morning referred to “ 40-50pc coral loss across the entire reef ” Dr. Ridd said that referred to a 2016-17 bleaching event .
“ In those surveys , they have largely done very shallow corals .
They have totally ignored the deep coral .
The last data I saw on that was about 33pc was lost in this very shallow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coral goes down to 50m deep .
The surveys on the deep coral show almost zero loss of coral from bleaching which is what you would expect , and therefore when you aggregated it there was probably an 8pc reduction if you look at the whole thing .
“ Now an 8pc reduction in coral still sounds serious , but when you consider there was a 250pc increase in coral between 2011 when a huge cyclone wiped out most of the southern area of the reef , and 2016 , an 8pc decrease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from that within a few years.
” Is coral on the GBR dying ?
Asked by Senator Rennick if , in his opinion as someone who had spent his life examining the GBR , coral on the GBR is dying , Dr. Ridd said he did not believe it was .
“ I don ’ t think there is any evidence that it is dying , ” he said .
“ I have a slight reservation about the direct effect of carbon dioxide on ocean acidification .
The slight change there is some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that does concern me .
“ But the actual data on coral calcification shows , if anything , an increase in coral calcification and there is no data that suggests the coral cover is reducing .
It fluctuates massively , and there has been a reduction in 2016-17 , but it is basically the same as it was when records began.
” ‘ I never accuse scientists of doing things for the wrong thing reason ’ Questioned by One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts as to what can drive distortions of science , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his view that “ there is no conspiracy ” .
“ I never accuse scientists of doing things for the wrong thing reason , I think they genuinely believe .
All of the marine scientists that I know who disagree with me , they believe , they are not doing it fraudulently or anything like that , but they come to what I believe are often the wrong conclusions , sometimes because they are very emotional about the reef , but essentially because there aren ’ t the proper quality assurance systems.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher standards Dr. Ridd said that if the science was wrong , farmers will pay for it , and then people in the city .
“ You know the fact is , the new regulations , even the old regulations , are putting costs up for the farmers , ” he said .
“ Alright , that is not my business , I am a scientist , I am just saying that before you go ahead and do that , you really just need to check the science to make sure it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as correct as it should be.
” Dr. Ridd acknowledged he was “ in the minority ” on the question of whether or not the reef is being damaged by farms .
However , he said he was not in the minority when talking about quality assurance problems with science .
“ I am in the majority , I am with the mainstream , when we talk about there is a quality assurance problem in science , ” he said .
“ So what I am suggesting is that we need some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of information , ie AIMS coral growth rate data , and actually subjects it to real scrutiny and actually does the experiments again and see whether we can get the same result and then we can have a look at that and see how we go .
“ And by having some sort of quality assurance system just like auditors in financial systems , what it would do is it would make the scientists be much more careful about the work they produce.
” ‘ Why do you keep going ?
’ Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come at enormous personal cost , both to his reputation and financially ” , LNP Senator Susan McDonald asked Dr. Ridd , why did he keep going ?
“ Wouldn ’ t it be easier to go home ?
” she asked .
“ Because I get very grumpy when I see stuff that is wrong , ” he replied .
“ That is what made me 15 years ago start this quality assurance work , I could see stuff that is just not right .
“ My own work was being misquoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peers , my whole group , was being ignored .
“ This whole , you know , our work has been totally ignored , you just go on and on and you don ’ t like to see that .
Eventually , you say something , and bad things happen .
“ Anyway… I just go on , I can ’ t say why.
” Dr. Ridd said he understood that being in the ‘ significant minority ’ would mean people would believe he was wrong .
“ And you know I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my life , I am sure that some of the things I have written down in that report are wrong .
“ But the basic question ‘ is there enough quality assurance ’ , I am certain that is not wrong .
“ I am not asking you to believe everything that I have said on a scientific basis , but I think there is more than enough evidence to say we need to do a bit better checking than what it is going on .
“ That is really the most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He told the senators that if independent authority was established to check reef science , it was essential it be truly independent .
“ Such an organization , if it was captured by the primary science organization , would be Caesar judging Caesar and would be an absolute disaster .
“ That is why I think if it is done it needs to be run through the audit office , you need to have people who understand what happens when the consensus group takes over and excludes the other group and great care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it would have the effect that scientists would be much more careful about making statements and publishing results where there was a likelihood they haven ’ t been careful , as careful as they should have been .
”

Written by James Nason on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Scientist Dr. Peter Ridd has become widely known in recent years for his outspoken views on the quality of science used to underpin new water quality controls on agriculture in the Great Barrier Reef catchment.
He has worked on the Great Barrier Reef since 1984 at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and at James Cook University (JCU), with his research appearing in over 100 publications in international journals mostly relating to Great Barrier Reef and marine applications.
In 2018, he was fired by James Cook University after stating that the two GBR science institutions were producing results that are untrustworthy due to insufficient quality assurance protocols.
Last year, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found Dr. Ridd’s sacking by JCU was unlawful and awarded him $1.2m.
But that decision was overturned on appeal by the full bench of the Federal Circuit Court last week which found JCU had acted lawfully in dismissing Dr. Ridd.
The case has become a lightning rod for debate in Australia over freedom of intellectual inquiry and freedom of speech.
Inquiry delves into evidence that underpins Qld reef regulations
Yesterday, Dr. Ridd appeared before a public hearing in Brisbane for a Senate Committee inquiry into the regulation of farm practices in Queensland impacting water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef.
The regulations affect cattle grazing, cane farming, and dryland cropping business across 42.4 million hectares of Queensland and commit each industry to achieve minimum water quality targets by 2025 (See map left).
The Queensland Department of Science and Energy in its submission told the inquiry a large evidence-base exists demonstrating the impact of water quality from the adjacent, predominately agriculture areas, on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).
“Summaries of the thousands of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that provide this supporting evidence have been periodically undertaken since 2003 with bipartisan support, as the underpinning evidence base for the joint Reef Water Quality Protection Plans, now Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017-2022 developed in collaboration between the Australian and Queensland Governments.”
It adds that its reef science is proven, supported by rigorous processes including peer review, independent expert reviews, and audits. “The evidence is strong, the science robust, and the conclusions drawn from the science are sound,” it says.
In his submission to the inquiry, Dr. Ridd maintains there is a serious concern that much of the evidence claiming adverse effects of agriculture on the Great Barrier Reef “is highly questionable.”
He believes a full audit of the evidence relating to the potential effect of agriculture on the GBR should be carried out by a group of independent scientists not attached to government institutions working on the GBR.
Dr. Ridd emphasizes his independence, stating in his submission he has not received any salary from the oil, coal, sugar, beef or tobacco interests, despite being often accused of having done so.
His submission states that while he worked at JCU and AIMS, all of his salary and research funding was directed through those institutions, and he did not receive anything but his regular institutional salary.
Greater quality assurance needed in science
It notes that since his sacking from JCU in 2018 he is now working, without payment, to improve Quality Assurance systems in science.
Dr. Ridd, who is a physicist, said science should be based on a higher standard of quality assurance than currently exists, referring to experts who have spoken more broadly about similar concerns with existing scientific standards around the world.
This included Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, who in 2015 wrote that: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness”.
A 2017 study in Britain suggested science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.
Last year Australia’s Chief Scientist Professor Alan Finkel lamented the “significant number of papers that are of poor quality, and should never have made it through to publication”.
Dr. Ridd said the peer review system on its own is not adequate or effective. ‘Dissent, skepticism, replication, testing, and checking’ were essential to science, but didn’t happen anywhere near as much as they should, he said.
“That is why I am suggesting we need some sort of extra quality assurance mechanism to check the reef science.
“And, I ask, why would you not want to do that?”
Scientific principles such as Newton’s Law of Motion were “five-star science,” “something you can rely on with your life” because they had been “massively checked, tested and replicated.”
Peer review was closer to “two-star science,” he said.
There was a need to get the level of replication “as high as we can.”
In his 36-year-career of work in the Great Barrier Reef, Dr. Ridd co-invented the first instruments capable of taking long-term measurements of sediment on the reef.
His submission states his group “has done more measurements of sediment (mud) concentrations near reefs than any other group”.
During 30 minutes of questions from Senators yesterday, he provided several examples of his concerns with the existing scientific consensus on reef science.
While these are discussed in detail in his submission, some of the concerns he discussed included:
Coral growth rate data: Dr. Ridd said he has raised concerns with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) about its claim there has been a halving of GBR coral cover since the 1960s.
He said this is “the only bit of data” that supposedly shows this halving of coral, but said AIMS has refused to release the original data so it can be scrutinized.
Sediment from farms on the reef: “If you look at sediments, there is no sediment out on the Great Barrier Reef. I can take you to the GBR, I’d love to take you to the GBR, you name the reef, and we will go there and I will demonstrate there is no sediment from farms on the great barrier reef. That is it, right, that is the data and that decides whether it is right or wrong.”
2017 Scientific Consensus Statement describing agriculture as the main pollutant in the reef: “In my view, there is no proof that agriculture has any significant effect on the reef whatsoever,” Dr. Ridd said.
He said agricultural pesticides were “in such low concentrations” that on 97 percent of the GBR “they don’t even bother measuring it, because the concentrations are so low.”
He said concentrations of pesticides inshore and in the rivers and wetlands “can undoubtedly get to high levels.”
However, he said, “all the measurements except for one on the round top island on the mouth of the Pioneer River, except for that one example, there have been no measurements on the GBR of pesticides that reach anywhere near a harmful level, so we know that pesticides are not damaging the coral.”
Fertilizer produces algal blooms: “The farmers are accused of all the fertilizer-producing algal blooms, but what is ignored and you won’t see it in the consensus statement is that there are 100 times more nutrients that cycle across the seabed than comes down all the rivers in total, so it is a drop in the bucket the effect of the farmers on the GBR. Now that is not my work, that is by Miles Furness from the AIMS. 20 years of his life was devoted ultimately to that conclusion.”
Cyclone impacts: “A cyclone like Yasi probably re-suspended 500 million cubic meters of mud, this is hundreds of times more than what is going to come down from the rivers… Cyclones kill more coral than anything else, they will resuspend a layer of sediment up to 30cm deep 100km across and 50km wide, they’re like bulldozers that go through.”
Muddy bottom reefs: Questioned by Qld LNP Senator Gerard Rennick about “muddy bottom reefs,” Dr. Ridd said these are specifically to do with inshore reefs.
“We have a huge number of measurements on the muddy reef, we know from the geological evidence that these have been muddy for thousands of years because the mud around them has been laid down by rivers over thousands of years… the scientists talk about these inshore reefs and they never tell the public we’re only talking about a very small fraction of the coral that are even muddy at all.”
40-50 percent coral loss across the entire reef: LNP Senator Susan McDonald said evidence given earlier in the morning referred to “40-50pc coral loss across the entire reef” Dr. Ridd said that referred to a 2016-17 bleaching event.
“In those surveys, they have largely done very shallow corals. They have totally ignored the deep coral. The last data I saw on that was about 33pc was lost in this very shallow area, 0-2 meters deep. The coral goes down to 50m deep. The surveys on the deep coral show almost zero loss of coral from bleaching which is what you would expect, and therefore when you aggregated it there was probably an 8pc reduction if you look at the whole thing.
“Now an 8pc reduction in coral still sounds serious, but when you consider there was a 250pc increase in coral between 2011 when a huge cyclone wiped out most of the southern area of the reef, and 2016, an 8pc decrease is not much, it will recover from that within a few years.”
Is coral on the GBR dying? Asked by Senator Rennick if, in his opinion as someone who had spent his life examining the GBR, coral on the GBR is dying, Dr. Ridd said he did not believe it was.
“I don’t think there is any evidence that it is dying,” he said. “I have a slight reservation about the direct effect of carbon dioxide on ocean acidification. The slight change there is some evidence that they may cause some problems, that does concern me.
“But the actual data on coral calcification shows, if anything, an increase in coral calcification and there is no data that suggests the coral cover is reducing. It fluctuates massively, and there has been a reduction in 2016-17, but it is basically the same as it was when records began.”
‘I never accuse scientists of doing things for the wrong thing reason’
Questioned by One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts as to what can drive distortions of science, Dr. Ridd went to lengths to explain his view that “there is no conspiracy”.
“I never accuse scientists of doing things for the wrong thing reason, I think they genuinely believe. All of the marine scientists that I know who disagree with me, they believe, they are not doing it fraudulently or anything like that, but they come to what I believe are often the wrong conclusions, sometimes because they are very emotional about the reef, but essentially because there aren’t the proper quality assurance systems.”
Science driving regulations must be held to higher standards
Dr. Ridd said that if the science was wrong, farmers will pay for it, and then people in the city.
“You know the fact is, the new regulations, even the old regulations, are putting costs up for the farmers,” he said.
“Alright, that is not my business, I am a scientist, I am just saying that before you go ahead and do that, you really just need to check the science to make sure it is fair dinkum and we have actually got it as correct as it should be.”
Dr. Ridd acknowledged he was “in the minority” on the question of whether or not the reef is being damaged by farms.
However, he said he was not in the minority when talking about quality assurance problems with science.
“I am in the majority, I am with the mainstream, when we talk about there is a quality assurance problem in science,” he said.
“So what I am suggesting is that we need some sort of body which takes a piece of information, ie AIMS coral growth rate data, and actually subjects it to real scrutiny and actually does the experiments again and see whether we can get the same result and then we can have a look at that and see how we go.
“And by having some sort of quality assurance system just like auditors in financial systems, what it would do is it would make the scientists be much more careful about the work they produce.”
‘Why do you keep going?’
Given his stances on reef science “have come at enormous personal cost, both to his reputation and financially”, LNP Senator Susan McDonald asked Dr. Ridd, why did he keep going?
“Wouldn’t it be easier to go home?” she asked.
“Because I get very grumpy when I see stuff that is wrong,” he replied.
“That is what made me 15 years ago start this quality assurance work, I could see stuff that is just not right.
“My own work was being misquoted or ignored. Not just mine, peers, my whole group, was being ignored.
“This whole, you know, our work has been totally ignored, you just go on and on and you don’t like to see that. Eventually, you say something, and bad things happen.
“Anyway… I just go on, I can’t say why.”
Being in a significant minority
Dr. Ridd said he understood that being in the ‘significant minority’ would mean people would believe he was wrong.
“And you know I have been wrong on so many things in my life, I am sure that some of the things I have written down in that report are wrong.
“But the basic question ‘is there enough quality assurance’, I am certain that is not wrong.
“I am not asking you to believe everything that I have said on a scientific basis, but I think there is more than enough evidence to say we need to do a bit better checking than what it is going on.
“That is really the most important thing [about] my submission.”
‘We cannot have Caesar judging Caesar’
He told the senators that if independent authority was established to check reef science, it was essential it be truly independent.
“Such an organization, if it was captured by the primary science organization, would be Caesar judging Caesar and would be an absolute disaster.
“That is why I think if it is done it needs to be run through the audit office, you need to have people who understand what happens when the consensus group takes over and excludes the other group and great care would have to be taken.
“But it would have the effect that scientists would be much more careful about making statements and publishing results where there was a likelihood they haven’t been careful, as careful as they should have been.”
Read more at Beef Quality
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Peter Ridd Heads To Australia’s ‘High Court’

Written by Charlie Peel on .
Posted in Latest news A week after the Federal Circuit Court overturned an earlier court decision awarding him $ 1.2m , the marine physicist has confirmed the next front in his legal battle that has already cost more than $ 1m .
Professor Ridd , who has personally spent $ 300,000 in his fight , has rallied his supporters in a fresh fundraising bid aimed at amassing $ 630,000 to bankroll his appeal to the highest court .
The Federal Circuit Court found the Townsville-based university had not acted unlawfully when it sacked their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaching its code of conduct with his criticism and by breaking a confidentiality direction in discussing the ensuing disciplinary process .
The court ruled that the code of conduct trumped the intellectual freedom provisions in the university ’ s enterprise agreement .
Professor Ridd told The Australian on Tuesday he had already spent $ 1.15m on his legal campaign , $ 860,000 of which came from donations .
For the scientist , 59 , the fight is about more than the loss of potential earnings from a stalled academic career .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Australian .
“ We ’ ve got to have it that academics can speak .
“ The fact is that because it was justified to fire me , any academic who wants to speak out about the Great Barrier Reef or any controversial issue will know it ’ s not worth the risk.
” Professor Ridd said his lawyers had convinced him of “ numerous strong grounds for appeal ” , which he had weighed against the exhaustive mental toll wrought by two years of legal action .
“ I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lightly , ” he said in a notice to be uploaded to his GoFundMe page , which has been the basis of his fundraising effort .
“ The financial and emotional costs are high and legal action is fraught with uncertainties.
” First , Professor Ridd would have to convince the High Court the case involved “ a question of law of public importance , ” to be granted special leave to appeal the Federal Circuit Court decision .
The court ’ s verdict has been praised by the university representative group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which said the verdict “ upholds the university ’ s right to set appropriate behavioral standards in the exercise of those rights ” and rejected the premise that the sacking was an intellectual freedom issue .
Professor Ridd said the criticism of colleagues was integral to his argument that the university ’ s climate change science relating to the reef was untrustworthy , driven by emotion , and lacking rigorous scrutiny .
“ I was fired for being critical of my colleagues … for an academic comment I made about quality assurance in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ridd said he was “ quite encouraged ” by federal Education Minister Dan Tehan ’ s commitment last week to review the new university model code , developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French , aimed at protecting freedom of speech on university campuses .
“ Anything he ( Tehan ) does has to be put into the ( enterprise ) agreement , ” Professor Ridd said .
“ As soon as there is any doubt , the university will win because the academic knows they can ’ t afford the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of the Institute of Public Affairs , which funded some of Professor Ridd ’ s legal challenge , said the appeal would be a “ historic ” test on the meaning of intellectual freedom .
Read more at The Australian Peter Ridd on the recent setback : We have had a setback , but my lawyers have carefully gone over the judgment , and believe there are numerous , strong grounds for appeal to the High Court of Australia .
We are reopening the fundraising campaign and will carry on with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s High Court Appeal

Written by Charlie Peel on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A week after the Federal Circuit Court overturned an earlier court decision awarding him $1.2m, the marine physicist has confirmed the next front in his legal battle that has already cost more than $1m.
Professor Ridd, who has personally spent $300,000 in his fight, has rallied his supporters in a fresh fundraising bid aimed at amassing $630,000 to bankroll his appeal to the highest court.
The Federal Circuit Court found the Townsville-based university had not acted unlawfully when it sacked their employee of 30 years in 2018 for breaching its code of conduct with his criticism and by breaking a confidentiality direction in discussing the ensuing disciplinary process.
The court ruled that the code of conduct trumped the intellectual freedom provisions in the university’s enterprise agreement.
Professor Ridd told The Australian on Tuesday he had already spent $1.15m on his legal campaign, $860,000 of which came from donations.
For the scientist, 59, the fight is about more than the loss of potential earnings from a stalled academic career. “This is about principle,” Professor Ridd told The Australian. “We’ve got to have it that academics can speak.
“The fact is that because it was justified to fire me, any academic who wants to speak out about the Great Barrier Reef or any controversial issue will know it’s not worth the risk.”
Professor Ridd said his lawyers had convinced him of “numerous strong grounds for appeal”, which he had weighed against the exhaustive mental toll wrought by two years of legal action.
“I don’t take the decision to appeal lightly,” he said in a notice to be uploaded to his GoFundMe page, which has been the basis of his fundraising effort.
“The financial and emotional costs are high and legal action is fraught with uncertainties.” First, Professor Ridd would have to convince the High Court the case involved “a question of law of public importance,” to be granted special leave to appeal the Federal Circuit Court decision.
The court’s verdict has been praised by the university representative group, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association, which said the verdict “upholds the university’s right to set appropriate behavioral standards in the exercise of those rights” and rejected the premise that the sacking was an intellectual freedom issue.
Professor Ridd said the criticism of colleagues was integral to his argument that the university’s climate change science relating to the reef was untrustworthy, driven by emotion, and lacking rigorous scrutiny.
“I was fired for being critical of my colleagues … for an academic comment I made about quality assurance in science,” he said.
Professor Ridd said he was “quite encouraged” by federal Education Minister Dan Tehan’s commitment last week to review the new university model code, developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French, aimed at protecting freedom of speech on university campuses.
“Anything he (Tehan) does has to be put into the (enterprise) agreement,” Professor Ridd said.
“As soon as there is any doubt, the university will win because the academic knows they can’t afford the legal battle.”
Policy director Gideon Rozner, of the Institute of Public Affairs, which funded some of Professor Ridd’s legal challenge, said the appeal would be a “historic” test on the meaning of intellectual freedom.
Read more at The Australian
Peter Ridd on the recent setback: We have had a setback, but my lawyers have carefully gone over the judgment, and believe there are numerous, strong grounds for appeal to the High Court of Australia. We are reopening the fundraising campaign and will carry on with the legal action. Please support Peter Ridd’s High Court Appeal
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--Tailpipe Woes: BMW Will Tie Executive Pay To Climate Goals

Written by AFP on .
Posted in Latest news German giant BMW on Monday said executive pay would in future be tied to meeting strict targets aimed at lowering the luxury carmaker ’ s carbon emissions .
Speaking to reporters in Munich , chief executive Oliver Zipse said BMW wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by millions of tonnes a year by 2030 as part of its “ very clear commitment ” to the Paris climate agreement .
“ We will report on our progress every year and measure ourselves against these targets , ” Zipse said .
“ The compensation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management will also be tied to this.
” He did not go into detail about how the climate goals would affect pay , saying only that they would have a noticeable impact .
Like other carmakers , BMW is under pressure to make its fleet greener in order to comply with tough new EU pollution regulations .
Zipse said the group aimed to sell seven million electric or hybrid vehicles by 2030 , up from 500,000 sold by the end of 2019 .
The carmaker has no plans however to ditch the traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as there ’ s a market ” for them , Zipse said .
As part of its climate push , Zipse said BMW aimed to make a vehicle ’ s “ entire lifecycle ” more environmentally sustainable , from supply chains to production to how the car performs on the road , with the goal of slashing emissions per car “ by at least one third ” by 2030 .
This would be achieved through measures such as using renewable energy at production sites , more recycling , looking at the carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any remaining CO2 emissions .
Turning to the car industry ’ s coronavirus woes , Zipse said BMW had a “ relatively good ” month in June as countries emerged from lockdown and showrooms reopened .
But he added that it would be “ naive ” to think sales would climb back to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon .
“ We are going to experience difficult autumn , ” he warned .

Written by AFP on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
German giant BMW on Monday said executive pay would in future be tied to meeting strict targets aimed at lowering the luxury carmaker’s carbon emissions.
Speaking to reporters in Munich, chief executive Oliver Zipse said BMW wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by millions of tonnes a year by 2030 as part of its “very clear commitment” to the Paris climate agreement.
“We will report on our progress every year and measure ourselves against these targets,” Zipse said.
“The compensation of our board of management and executive management will also be tied to this.”
He did not go into detail about how the climate goals would affect pay, saying only that they would have a noticeable impact.
Like other carmakers, BMW is under pressure to make its fleet greener in order to comply with tough new EU pollution regulations.
Zipse said the group aimed to sell seven million electric or hybrid vehicles by 2030, up from 500,000 sold by the end of 2019.
The carmaker has no plans however to ditch the traditional combustion engine or gas-guzzling SUVs “so long as there’s a market” for them, Zipse said.
As part of its climate push, Zipse said BMW aimed to make a vehicle’s “entire lifecycle” more environmentally sustainable, from supply chains to production to how the car performs on the road, with the goal of slashing emissions per car “by at least one third” by 2030.
This would be achieved through measures such as using renewable energy at production sites, more recycling, looking at the carbon footprint of suppliers, and by offsetting any remaining CO2 emissions.
Turning to the car industry’s coronavirus woes, Zipse said BMW had a “relatively good” month in June as countries emerged from lockdown and showrooms reopened.
But he added that it would be “naive” to think sales would climb back to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon.
“We are going to experience difficult autumn,” he warned.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-28--BBC Revives #ExxonKnew Campaign Using Debunked Claims, Biased Sources

Written by William Allison on .
Posted in Latest news The BBC is the latest legacy media institution that ’ s done a deep dive into the “ Exxon Knew ” campaign and churned out a 10-part podcast series that features very little in the way of new reporting but includes plenty of biased voices looking to smear the energy industry .
Instead , the series merely rehashes prior reporting that ’ s existed for years to allege that ExxonMobil hid its knowledge about climate change , despite recent court rulings that cleared the company of any wrongdoing .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents from the company that shows ExxonMobil was engaged in robust climate research in the 1970s and 1980s but was unable to reach definitive conclusions at the time , completely undercutting the “ Exxon Knew ” premise .
The Same Old News Considering the BBC appeared to spend considerable time and effort to produce a 10-part podcast series , listeners would have a reasonable expectation of hearing new reporting .
Yet for the BBC ’ s audience , it was more of the same .
The podcast series relies heavily on the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , published by the pay-for-play “ journalists ” at InsideClimate News ( ICN ) .
In 2015 , ICN published a series alleging that ExxonMobil knew about climate change for decades but did nothing to warn the public , accusations that featured in a nearly identical investigation shortly thereafter in the Los Angeles Times .
The reporting done by ICN and the investigation published in the Los Angeles Times turned out to be tainted , subjective journalism .
ICN has received more than $ 1 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided massive financial support for a network of activist groups behind the “ Exxon Knew ” campaign .
The investigation in the Los Angeles Times wasn ’ t actually written by reporters from that newspaper , but rather the Columbia School of Journalism , through a program the Rockefellers later admitted to funding .
( Apparently having fulfilled its mission , the program was shuttered after just three years ) .
This news is so old , ExxonMobil posted a rebuttal to the Los Angeles Times in 2015 about how the newspaper purposely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s climate research that undercuts the entire premise of the series : ICN even admitted after publication that ExxonMobil did not stop or suppress research .
The BBC series never acknowledges that the original “ Exxon Knew ” reporting was part of a campaign that sought to lay the groundwork for climate litigation against energy producers .
“ Exxon Knew ” proponents have cherry-picked company documents and ignored crucial context .
For example , an ExxonMobil memo from 1979 that activists point to as a smoking gun includes a key passage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old , subjective reporting , the BBC also interviewed guests without giving any credence to their credibility .
The series features multiple accusations from Kert Davies that ExxonMobil lied to the public about climate change .
But Davies is clearly a biased voice as he ’ s been an active participant in the campaign against the company .
He ’ s the founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center ( CIC ) , which calls him a “ climate activist who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a former Greenpeace official .
The CIC has been criticized for flouting state laws and describing itself as a non-profit even though it ’ s not registered as such with the IRS and it has secretive arrangements with other organizations that help it hide its list of donors .
While pushing the “ Exxon Knew ” narrative , Davies has cherry-picked documents , aided the activist-run Drilled podcast , and serves on the board of the Climate Docket ( formerly called Climate Liability News ) , a dark-money activist website promoting climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerry Taylor , president of the Niskanen Institute , which is representing Boulder and San Miguel Counties in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil in Colorado .
The organization has also received financial support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund – the groups behind the entire climate litigation campaign .
Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes is also interviewed for the series .
Oreskes is a key player in the campaign against ExxonMobil and had reviewed the company ’ s advertorials for a study published in 2017 .
Their study was reviewed by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was found to be “ unreliable , invalid , biased , not generalizable , and not replicable.
” The BBC series features two former ExxonMobil employees who came out as whistleblowers , Martin Hoffert and Ed Garvey , both of whom worked at the company in the 1970s and 1980s .
Both employees say ExxonMobil made “ misleading statements ” to the public about climate change , and Garvey says the company missed an opportunity to develop alternative energy sources .
They originally came forward in 2015 as part of the ICN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entirety of the BBC series , these stories from Hoffert and Garvey are nothing new , and the broadcaster couldn ’ t apparently find anyone else from ExxonMobil ’ s lengthy roster to substantiate the claims of these two former employees .
That ’ s most likely because ExxonMobil hasn ’ t engaged in the deception its opponents regularly accuse it of .
During the trial of the New York attorney general ’ s case against the company last year , multiple current and former employees and outside investors testified that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager wrote in his decision : Despite activists spending millions of dollars , and municipalities and state attorneys general filing numerous lawsuits , the campaign to tear down ExxonMobil has been a gigantic failure .
San Francisco , Oakland , and New York City introduced public nuisance lawsuits that sought to make energy companies pay for damages related to climate change , which were later dismissed by federal judges .
Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman put together a group of state attorneys general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of them later backed out .
Schneiderman ’ s own investigation was focused on “ Exxon Knew ” and his office reviewed millions of documents but came up empty .
Over the course of four years , his office was forced to repeatedly revise the lawsuit downward before it eventually wound up as charges over accounting measures , which was eventually rejected by Justice Ostrager who clearedExxonMobil of all charges : The BBC series is just the latest reminder that the campaign against the company isn ’ t based on science or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rockefellers even outlined this strategy in a secret meeting where a plan was designed to “ [ establish ] in the public ’ s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution , ” and to “ delegitimize them as a political actor ” by using tactics for “ creating a scandal.
” Richard Ayres , an environmental attorney , even admitted that the public relations strategy was just as important as the legal outcomes , saying : “ getting attention of course from the press , and in some ways , we suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might be more important even than winning the case.
” Today , ExxonMobil clearly asserts that the science from several decades was far from settled and has strongly criticized these political investigations as having a “ chilling effect ” on research – which hurts the fight against climate change .
“ Contrary to activists ’ claims , our company ’ s deliberations decades ago yielded no definitive conclusions .
As our scientists determined at the time , many important questions about climate science remained unanswered , and more research was required .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise that Exxon ’ s scientists discussed the available scientific research at the time and sought to build upon it through their own studies .
This free exchange of ideas is essential to productive scientific inquiry .
“ If such deliberations are subject to legal scrutiny through the lens of later baseless allegations , what incentive do companies have to pursue further research ?
The investigations targeting our company threaten to have a chilling effect on private sector research.
” ExxonMobil has repeatedly been cleared in the courtroom during this politically inspired campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of old reporting doesn ’ t do a thing to change that .

Written by William Allison on Jul 28, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The BBC is the latest legacy media institution that’s done a deep dive into the “Exxon Knew” campaign and churned out a 10-part podcast series that features very little in the way of new reporting but includes plenty of biased voices looking to smear the energy industry.
Instead, the series merely rehashes prior reporting that’s existed for years to allege that ExxonMobil hid its knowledge about climate change, despite recent court rulings that cleared the company of any wrongdoing.
Like past reporting, the series ignores key documents from the company that shows ExxonMobil was engaged in robust climate research in the 1970s and 1980s but was unable to reach definitive conclusions at the time, completely undercutting the “Exxon Knew” premise.
The Same Old News
Considering the BBC appeared to spend considerable time and effort to produce a 10-part podcast series, listeners would have a reasonable expectation of hearing new reporting. Yet for the BBC’s audience, it was more of the same.
The podcast series relies heavily on the same storylines and even includes documents and sources, published by the pay-for-play “journalists” at InsideClimate News (ICN).
In 2015, ICN published a series alleging that ExxonMobil knew about climate change for decades but did nothing to warn the public, accusations that featured in a nearly identical investigation shortly thereafter in the Los Angeles Times.
The reporting done by ICN and the investigation published in the Los Angeles Times turned out to be tainted, subjective journalism.
ICN has received more than $1 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund – groups that have provided massive financial support for a network of activist groups behind the “Exxon Knew” campaign.
The investigation in the Los Angeles Times wasn’t actually written by reporters from that newspaper, but rather the Columbia School of Journalism, through a program the Rockefellers later admitted to funding. (Apparently having fulfilled its mission, the program was shuttered after just three years).
This news is so old, ExxonMobil posted a rebuttal to the Los Angeles Times in 2015 about how the newspaper purposely left out a key document on the company’s climate research that undercuts the entire premise of the series:
“In its reportage on climate change research at ExxonMobil, the Los Angeles Times made a very telling editorial decision. The paper chose not to publish the document it cites as Exhibit A in its case against us: a 1989 presentation to Exxon’s board of directors by senior company scientist Duane Levine. I have no doubt why the newspaper doesn’t want the public to see this document. “When you read it – which you can do here – it soon becomes clear that the document undercuts the paper’s claims that ExxonMobil knew with certainty everything there is to know about global warming back in the 1980s yet failed to sound alarms.”
ICN even admitted after publication that ExxonMobil did not stop or suppress research. The BBC series never acknowledges that the original “Exxon Knew” reporting was part of a campaign that sought to lay the groundwork for climate litigation against energy producers.
“Exxon Knew” proponents have cherry-picked company documents and ignored crucial context. For example, an ExxonMobil memo from 1979 that activists point to as a smoking gun includes a key passage that reads:
“It must be realized that there is great uncertainty in the existing climatic models because of a poor understanding of the atmospheric/ terrestrial/ oceanic CO2. balance. Much more study and research in this area is required before major changes in energy type usage could be recommended.” (emphasis added)
Biased Sources
In addition to rehashing old, subjective reporting, the BBC also interviewed guests without giving any credence to their credibility.
The series features multiple accusations from Kert Davies that ExxonMobil lied to the public about climate change. But Davies is clearly a biased voice as he’s been an active participant in the campaign against the company.
He’s the founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center (CIC), which calls him a “climate activist who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than 20 years” and notes that Davies is a former Greenpeace official.
The CIC has been criticized for flouting state laws and describing itself as a non-profit even though it’s not registered as such with the IRS and it has secretive arrangements with other organizations that help it hide its list of donors.
While pushing the “Exxon Knew” narrative, Davies has cherry-picked documents, aided the activist-run Drilled podcast, and serves on the board of the Climate Docket (formerly called Climate Liability News), a dark-money activist website promoting climate lawsuits.
The BBC also spoke with Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Institute, which is representing Boulder and San Miguel Counties in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil in Colorado.
The organization has also received financial support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund – the groups behind the entire climate litigation campaign.
Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes is also interviewed for the series. Oreskes is a key player in the campaign against ExxonMobil and had reviewed the company’s advertorials for a study published in 2017.
Their study was reviewed by an expert in the field of data analysis and was found to be “unreliable, invalid, biased, not generalizable, and not replicable.”
No Other Whistleblowers
The BBC series features two former ExxonMobil employees who came out as whistleblowers, Martin Hoffert and Ed Garvey, both of whom worked at the company in the 1970s and 1980s.
Both employees say ExxonMobil made “misleading statements” to the public about climate change, and Garvey says the company missed an opportunity to develop alternative energy sources. They originally came forward in 2015 as part of the ICN “Exxon Knew” series.
Like the entirety of the BBC series, these stories from Hoffert and Garvey are nothing new, and the broadcaster couldn’t apparently find anyone else from ExxonMobil’s lengthy roster to substantiate the claims of these two former employees.
That’s most likely because ExxonMobil hasn’t engaged in the deception its opponents regularly accuse it of.
During the trial of the New York attorney general’s case against the company last year, multiple current and former employees and outside investors testified that they never engaged in or witnessed inappropriate behavior.
As New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager wrote in his decision:
“What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible. More than half of the current and former ExxonMobil executives and employees who testified at trial have worked for ExxonMobil for the entirety of their careers. “The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting. The Court heard testimony from ten present and former ExxonMobil employees, most of whom were called by the Office of the Attorney General as adverse witnesses. “There was not a single ExxonMobil employee whose testimony the Court found to be anything other than truthful.” (emphasis added)
ExxonMobil Has Repeatedly Been Cleared
Despite activists spending millions of dollars, and municipalities and state attorneys general filing numerous lawsuits, the campaign to tear down ExxonMobil has been a gigantic failure.
San Francisco, Oakland, and New York City introduced public nuisance lawsuits that sought to make energy companies pay for damages related to climate change, which were later dismissed by federal judges.
Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman put together a group of state attorneys general that aimed to sue ExxonMobil, but most of them later backed out.
Schneiderman’s own investigation was focused on “Exxon Knew” and his office reviewed millions of documents but came up empty.
Over the course of four years, his office was forced to repeatedly revise the lawsuit downward before it eventually wound up as charges over accounting measures, which was eventually rejected by Justice Ostrager who clearedExxonMobil of all charges:
“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor.”
The BBC series is just the latest reminder that the campaign against the company isn’t based on science or the law, but politics.
The Rockefellers even outlined this strategy in a secret meeting where a plan was designed to “[establish] in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution,” and to “delegitimize them as a political actor” by using tactics for “creating a scandal.”
Richard Ayres, an environmental attorney, even admitted that the public relations strategy was just as important as the legal outcomes, saying: “getting attention of course from the press, and in some ways, we suspect that that outcome, that aspect of it might be more important even than winning the case.”
Today, ExxonMobil clearly asserts that the science from several decades was far from settled and has strongly criticized these political investigations as having a “chilling effect” on research – which hurts the fight against climate change.
“Contrary to activists’ claims, our company’s deliberations decades ago yielded no definitive conclusions. As our scientists determined at the time, many important questions about climate science remained unanswered, and more research was required. “… It should come as no surprise that Exxon’s scientists discussed the available scientific research at the time and sought to build upon it through their own studies. This free exchange of ideas is essential to productive scientific inquiry. “If such deliberations are subject to legal scrutiny through the lens of later baseless allegations, what incentive do companies have to pursue further research? The investigations targeting our company threaten to have a chilling effect on private sector research.”
ExxonMobil has repeatedly been cleared in the courtroom during this politically inspired campaign, and the BBC’s rehashing of old reporting doesn’t do a thing to change that.
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print