Talk:Peter Ridd

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Peter Ridd is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.
Dredging is usually far from the reef, and has little effect, with the exception of one instance.
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.
The coral species in the reef grow in warmer waters elsewhere and grow faster.
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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]