That this guy opposes that consensus and takes funding from interest groups like the IPA, mining companies and cane growers leads me to another, quite possibly equally lazy conclusion.
That he was not treated fairly, I'll take the judge's word on that, too. The university's position was, ironically, partially about the quality of the debate:
“The University has not objected to Professor Ridd's right to comment on quality assurance.
However, the University has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so. Academic rebuttal of his scientific views on the reef has been separately published.”