Talk:Peter Ridd

CCD

I just came across this page doing NPP. It seems that the subject is primarily known for climate change denial views. At least something about that needs to be mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's my feeling too - this must be the sparsest page left up ever, while far better pages are put to draft space or deleted! Are people afraid of the controversy? Lindosland (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear from a superficial reading (and listening to his account on YouTube) that he is a CCD, he mentions temperature increase as an assumed fact. He specifically claims in his account:

1. Sediment on the reef is almost all comprised of coral skeletons, and very little reaches the reef from land. Cyclones too stir up far more sediment near reefs than human effects.
2. Dredging is usually far from the reef, and has little effect, with the exception of one instance.
3. The southern part of the reef has grown enormously 250%, far eclipsing the 5-10% reduction that he claims is the worst reasonable construction of the data.
4. The coral species in the reef grow in warmer waters elsewhere and grow faster.
5. Crown of thorns starfish is a recurrent plague, rather than a one-off, as confirmed by core samples. (Our article also seems to suggest that early reactions were over-reactions.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC).

From what I can see the subject of the biography has spoken very little on climate change. His core position, especially as reported in reliable sources, is that various alarmist claims by scientists about the effects of climate change and farm runoff on the Great Barrier Reef are not based in fact, are poorly (or not) replicated (which is a basic requirement for something to be accepted as science), and are strongly and convincingly contradicted by various facts as mentioned by Farmbrough above. For publicly stating this opinion he was harassed and fired by his university, and won in court when he sued for this. These facts seem to be adequately covered in the article. Sliming him as a climate change denier seems unwarranted, especially given BLP rules. Phil153 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Since the discussion above, this article has apparently again degenerated into a very one-sided labeling of Ridd as a denialist. As far as I can tell, he uncovered actual fraud in the disputed studies in question (source), but the current content willfully ignores this. Jpatokal (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the article could have a little more detail about his argument, but as I see it at present, it does not seem to characterise him as a denialist, it seems NPOV to me. While the article you mention makes some interesting points, talking about a "a creeping infection of postmodern nihilism" does make me concerned about its overall position. NB. Just my view, not a hill I want to die on. I don't have the energy to get up the hill, let alone defend it. JohnAugust (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)