Shattered ... the reptile readership, that is, as the news came in from afar ...
Oh a howling and a wailing rent the air, and the comments they were stricken, with a sense of feeling sicken ...
Oh they were shattered, and yet the lizard Oz readership had friends to meet him and their kindly voices greet him, in the murmur of the sea shells and the tide on the turn, and he sees the coral vision splendid, and the sunlit reef extended, and yet, and yet ... somehow the wondrous glory of the reptiles' everlasting star had dimmed ...
But still they rallied to his side, for the coral scientist's life has pleasures that the townsfolk never know ...
Oh they were restless at the station, and yet all the reptiles could say was more to come ...
Oh yes, there'll be more to come, because the organisation is rotten to the core, and full of climate science denialists and the readership expects it and wants it, and a few flashy tabloid covers featuring the occasional blonde, forgotten in a trice, won't let the leopard change its denialist spots ...
Well yes, who can argue with the Bolter? For once he's got it right. It's rubbish, it's hypocritical, it's fraudulent, it's bullshit, and it's rotten to the core, and everyone can agree with the Bolter ... and fancy being able to say that!
As a result, the pond looks forward to his principled resignation from the company no later than close of business tomorrow, followed by a massive walk out by his denialist colleagues, all honourable men, all with alternative careers as expert climate scientists waiting for them ... and then finally we'll know it wasn't just a cynical exercise in spin designed to help out the coal clutcher as Glasgow loomed.
Meanwhile ...
Graudian the Bolter here, Graudian Joshi here, and wait for the wails as the independent scientist seeks the comfort of the reptile bosom, the bosom that has offered much comfort and solace over the years ...
Indeed, indeed, but there's plenty of baldfaced, shameless liars ...
From Jamie Walker's little dose of whiffle piffle:
ReplyDelete1. "His [Ridd's] sacking was justified on 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom."
then, just few sentences later:
2. "Professor Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for criticism of colleagues and their research into climate change and the Great Barrier Reef."
Ok, so who's non compos, me or Jamie or the High Court ? The Court rejected the argument that Ridd shouldn't have acted like an r-soul to his colleagues but determined that he'd breached contractual "obligations of confidentiality in relation to JCU's disciplinary processes".
Are these nincompoops simply unable to read, or are they just unable to comprehend anything that they do try to read ?
For anybody still vaguely interested, here's an informative analysis which especially deals with tge distinction between "academic freedom" and "free speech" and why Ridd only violated one of them:
ReplyDeleteAs the Ridd case reminds us, academic freedom is not the same as free speech
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/14/as-the-ridd-case-reminds-us-academic-freedom-is-not-the-same-as-free-speech