Peter Ridd: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Great Barrier Reef

Reposted from Paul Homewood’s NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

DECEMBER 7, 2020 tags: coral

By Paul Homewood


The International Union for Conservation of Nature has released its latest report on the state of the Great Barrier Reef. It has turned up the volume by one notch, claiming the threat to the reef has gone from “significant concern” to “critical”. It blames climate change, agricultural pollution, coastal development, industry, mining, shipping, overfishing, disease, problematic native species, coal dust — you name it, it is killing the reef.

But the report is just a rehash of old, mostly wrong or misleading information produced by generally untrustworthy scientific institutions with an activist agenda and no commitment to quality assurance.

It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs. Part of the problem is that, being underwater and a long way from the coast, very few people visit the reef. The truth is hidden. Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef, and tourists from elsewhere, can report the water is iridescent clear blue and totally unpolluted. The fish and coral are fabulous.

An aerial view of the world-famous Heart Reef in the Whitsundays. Picture: Brooke Miles/Riptide Creative
An aerial view of the world-famous Heart Reef in the Whitsundays. Picture: Brooke Miles/Riptide Creative

The reef occasionally conspires to give the impression it is dying. An area of coral the size of Belgium can be killed by cyclones (hurricanes), native starfish plagues or bleaching. All these events are entirely natural and are part of life on the reef. In fact, each of the 3000 individual reefs, along the entire 2000km length of the Great Barrier Reef, is a 50-100m high plateau of dead coral rubble that has built up over millennia. The live coral lives on the surface of this pile of dead ancestors.

Sixty years ago, when these cycles of death and destruction were first being discovered by scientists, it was legitimate to be concerned about whether they were unnatural. But there is now abundant evidence, almost totally ignored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, that the reef is fine. The coral always recovers vigorously after major mortality events. Coral remains abundant on all 3000 reefs. The amount of coral, while fluctuating dramatically from year to year, is about the same today as when records began in the 1980s. The coral growth rates have not declined — if anything they have increased, as would be expected from the slight increase in temperature over the past century. Corals like it hot and grow faster in warmer water.

Ignoring evidence of the obvious good condition of the reef is not the least of the problems with this IUCN report. It also uses evidence that is patently false. For example, the report claims that coal dust blowing from ship-loading facilities is a risk to the reef, which is 100-1000km from the ports. This ridiculous claim is based on a report that was discredited by unquestioned experts on this subject, Dr Simon Apte and other scientists from the CSIRO, who showed that the results were in error by 3000 per cent. It is also highly doubtful that the original scientists were actually measuring coal dust. They were measuring poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, which are common, naturally occurring molecules not specific to coal.

It is not surprising that the IUCN report made the error of using this discredited coal dust report. Other major Australian reports on the reef also quote it. It is notable that when Apte tried to get the scientific journal and the Australian Institute of Marine science, which was responsible for the coal dust data, to correct the mistake, they refused to do anything. The science institutions have become untrustworthy.

Dr Peter Ridd at the Quoin Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre. Picture: Rodney Stevens

The IUCN makes other equally scandalous mistakes. It claims that agricultural pollution is a problem despite all the measurements showing concentrations of pesticides so low they are generally undetectable with the most sensitive scientific equipment. The effect of mud washed from farms is equally negligible.

The fundamental problem with the IUCN report is that it is based upon scientific evidence that is poorly quality assured. The scientific foundations are rotten and none of the science organisations want to remedy the problem — partly because the science organisations, and the IUCN, stopped being scientific long ago. They have recognised their political power. We must recognise they have become political.

Until genuine quality assurance measures can be put in place at the reef science institutions, the problem of untrustworthy scientific evidence, reported and repeated ad nauseam, will continue. The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 9, 2020 10:47 pm

President Eisenhower’s closing remarks in his farewell speech January 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Reply to  Palaver
December 10, 2020 9:29 am

Maybe that’s where the climate carpetbaggers got their big idea from?

M Seward
Reply to  Palaver
December 10, 2020 10:56 am

Its not government intervention per se rather the mechanistic effects of a new set or operating criteria, KPI’s and the like which have become the governing parameters. For example, the GFC was caused by the finance sector implementing very unhealthy incentive systems to selling loans and poor standards for loan security let alone the utter junk of collateralised loan deposits. KPI’s linked to corporate bonuses or corporate capital gain have distorted corporate bahaviour into short term stunt practices that conn the market during the start up growth phase before anyone looks at them returning a profit. Same thing with ‘climate science’, its the media-political impact through the filter of ‘science communication’ that has become the driver. ‘Sexed up’ science has become the order of the day and climate science in particular has gone big on its version of botox and a boob job.

December 9, 2020 11:17 pm

”It’s the science that’s rotten,”
Science is just a method. It’s the scientists that are rotten.

Reply to  Mike
December 10, 2020 3:51 am

No, science means knowledge not the method of gaining it. Whenever I see this now ubiquitous term “the science” I get very suspicious of what it is being used to claim. Scientific is not one indivisible entity which you either totally accept or totally reject. It is a body of knowledge much if which is incorrect or at least questionable at any one point in time.

The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.

Don’t tempt them. They can always invent “super-critical” so that they can say it’s “worse than ever”.

Reply to  Greg
December 10, 2020 5:42 am

[No, science means knowledge not the method of gaining it.]


Science is not just knowledge and no method.

Science is the organised body of knowledge concerning the physical or material world validated through the scientific method.

And the “organisation” of the knowledge as well as the “validation” via the scientific method is (or should be) performed by scientists.

The conclusion by the earlier commenter (Mike) is close-“ish” to the truth:

Science is just a method (of organising and validating new knowledge). It’s the scientists that are rotten.

Reply to  Greg
December 10, 2020 6:40 am

An interesting debate shaping up here. You might have a point. But I’m with the ‘science is a method’ people.

Science is a ‘new’ empiricism-based way of investigating the world, the universe, and reality generally. (‘New’ as compared to superstition, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, sophistry etc.)

What about the body of knowledge generated by science? Well, that is “scientific knowledge” surely? And none of it is perfectly right. All attempts to understand reality are necessarily approximations.

Robert Balic
Reply to  Greg
December 10, 2020 12:26 pm

Science once meant just knowledge, then knowledge attained using the scientific method.

If you study science, you not only attain knowledge from book learning (as the word was originally used) but the skills to change that body of knowledge.

In its original sense, that Eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib is science.

Reply to  Robert Balic
December 11, 2020 12:05 pm

Yes, the root word for ‘science’ is ‘knowledge’. But that is mere etymology and ancient history. It’s not a workable definition for the modern (i.e. post-Newton) age.

The word knowledge implies certainty. Consider it usage here. A: “Are you sure Persons X and Y are having an affair?” B: “Sure? I *know* they’re having one.”

Science is always work in progress. Never 100% certain, complete or settled.

As for, “In its original sense, that Eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib is science”. “Was” science – there fixed it.
Not any more it isn’t. That is (very) ancient history. Now, it is correctly regarded as mere superstition. Only of interest to scholars of antiquity.
And it sounds like Kuhn’s nonsense about “On the contrary, in some important respects, though by no means in all, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle’s than either of them is to Newton’s.” WTF? You can get a rocket to Mars using Newton’s theory; you can’t using Aristotle’s

Climate believer
December 9, 2020 11:26 pm

Well the “better than we thought” article about coral surviving heatwaves didn’t last long….

December 9, 2020 11:29 pm

It is so nice to hear a voice of sanity. Another telling the same story is Jennifer Marohasy, sometimes in conjunction with Peter.

A great pity they struggle to get widely heard. Thanks for helping.

Reply to  Hasbeen
December 10, 2020 2:38 am

I can type Tony Hellers name in YouTube and find his videos, but they never appear later on the main list. He’s gradually being silence by being shut out. So he switched to NewTube.

Perhaps Ridd and Morohasy are gradually being shut out as well.

Reply to  Klem
December 10, 2020 4:02 am

hey THANKS for the namedrop of alt place to see stuff;-)
lol well named

December 9, 2020 11:50 pm

Beware Soooper Critical Peter.

Steve Case
Reply to  Hotscot
December 10, 2020 2:05 am

The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.

Hotscot December 9, 2020 at 11:50 pm
Beware Soooper Critical Peter.

Yeah, that’s the line picked out to comment on.
I was thinking along the lines of “Turning it up to eleven!”

Reply to  Steve Case
December 10, 2020 2:40 am

“Turning it up to eleven!””</em.

Is that something along the lines of "more cowbells" ?

Steve Case
Reply to  fred250
December 10, 2020 4:32 am

Cowbells? Uh Same bus different seat. Here’s the coincidental eleven place code
that YouTube uses and that you can paste into the URL for any YouTube to reach the 50 second video: “Spinal Tap – “These go to eleven….”
Or you can just use YouTube’s Search box for that title.

Bob Irvine
December 9, 2020 11:51 pm

Really enjoyed your article.
I recently looked up the Hadley Centre data for the three reef grids. There appears to have been no warming since about 1925. Similarly the AIMS sst shows no Chang e that I can see for the length of their record.
Are these the best datasets?
If so, is supposed global warming damage to the reef a complete and obvious fabrication?

Mike Lowe
December 10, 2020 12:41 am

I’m sure that it is the actions of these so-called scientists which has severely damaged the reputation of science.
Biting the hand which feeds you, to gain instant fleeting notoriety! Not very intelligent, are they?
I’m glad I’m just an engineer!

Geoffrey Williams
December 10, 2020 1:46 am

Bravo Peter for speaking out in this manner. I do not trust these people.
It is clear to me that they have private agendas and they care nothing about the truth.

Ron Long
December 10, 2020 2:15 am

Great scientific report by Dr. Peter Ridd. His description that the active reef “lives on this pile of dead ancestors.” is a description of a limestone sedimentary layer being produced. One common marker for the transition from reef to limestone is whether bivalve shells fizz or not when a drop of dilute hydrochloric acid is placed on them. This transition is due to the shells start mineralogy being essentially aragonite, which is a loose crystal structure that tolerates many other ions stuffed into the structure here-and-there, and does not fizz. With added pressure the aragonite recrystallizes to calcite, which is a much more ordered crystal structure, and which does fizz. Let’s hope Peter Ridd, and Jennifer, can keep up the good work.

Reply to  Ron Long
December 10, 2020 10:35 am

Of all the potential coral damaging possibilities… they failed to even mention the most important one: bleaching from UV light. The shallower the reef and the calmer and clearer the water, the more UVB and UVA reach the coral.,bleaching%20in%20reef%2Dbuilding%20corals.

December 10, 2020 2:20 am

Lots of opinion but why no evidence?

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 4:52 am

Face it you don’t care for evidence, you never even answered if you dived the same sites you apparently did a dozen times before recently. That would at least be a good start. So if you aren’t even going to check your own observations how would anybody convince you. You are like a religious zealot not even your own eyes would change your mind and we both know that.

Reply to  LdB
December 10, 2020 9:25 pm

Loy LUVS the warmth of the Queensland coast 🙂

Just like he/she loves all the benefits of strong RELIABLE fossil fuel electricity that Qld has plenty of.

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 6:08 am

What evidence would you like to see?
Perhaps a birds eye (or fish eye) view of the submerged reef?
Like the criticized report’s authors, perhaps you should get out from behind your keyboard and visit the GBR. And visit more than just the brown coral which will always look half dead. Visit the Heart reef identified above and see if the pic has been photoshopped.
Point being, the GBR is huge and seeing as much of it first hand as possible will take you from a spoon fed critic to the informed voice you portray yourself to be.

Reply to  Rhs
December 10, 2020 10:01 pm

What evidence would you like to see?

“But there is now abundant evidence…that the reef is fine.”
“…the amount of coral… is about the same today as when records began in the 1980s.”

How about we start with these two. What evidence? How could Ridd’s so-called evidence be any better than that shown from surveys like this?

What ‘alternative’ surveys is he basing his opinions on? I would dearly love to know the reef is fine, so where are they? Aren’t you at all skeptical of Ridd’s claims?

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 11:27 pm

“What evidence would you like to see?”

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

So far.. you are totally EMPTY apart from abortive climate models and faked attribution studies.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 3:38 am

Coral bleaching is not caused by climate change. The air in contact with the ocean, UV, long wave radiation does not penetrate water. The ocean is warmed by direct sunlight, short wave radiation down to 100 metres. It’s got nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Recent bleachings happened during El Ninos when there is less cloud. Currently moving into La Nina where there is more cloud and less bleaching.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 8:00 am

Your own link is pretty funny it supports Peter Ridd … you just did a Griff.

Since you are clearly stupid let me explain if you put the averages on the coral cover graphs you would see the Northern GBR is the only one currently down (the average is about 21% its currently 15%). The central the average is around 15% which it currently is and the southern average is 25% which it currently is. So on those graphs as best we can tell only the northern reef is not the same as 1987.

There is a lot of problems with the data the survey method has changed a lot from 1987 to 2019.

Climate believer
Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 6:17 am

<"Lots of opinion but why no evidence?"….. as LdB said, evidence wouldn't move your opinion a nanometre.

One of Mr Ridd's "opinions": "The coral always recovers vigorously after major mortality events."

Studies done on very resilient corals at Jarvis Island out there in the Equatorial Pacific were ranked, despite a long history of repetitive bleaching stretching back to the sixties (and beyond), one of the healthiest ecosystems in the global ocean in 2012. This also puts into question the amount of time corals need to recover, with observed recovery happening very rapidly in this case.

Would it be prudent and open minded to investigate further such discoveries in the name of science, or castigate a man for even suggesting such a thing in the name of political correctness.

The simple fact that the GBR has survived this far after millions of years, with all that the climate has thrown at it, is proof enough for me that it's much hyped fragility status is a misrepresentation of the truth. It just doesn't ring true.

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 7:38 am

How about the evidence of perfectly healthy corals in a pristine blue sea full of fish? Will that do?

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 8:13 am

There have been a number of articles over the last few weeks.
Perhaps you ignored them?

Matheus Carvalho
Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 10:27 am

I will see if my colleague published his paper showing that there is no nitrogen pollution at the corals. He told me that in person, I just don’t know if he dared to publish it (he was a bit nervous about it, he knows it will displease the wrong people).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matheus Carvalho
December 10, 2020 12:31 pm

“I just don’t know if he dared to publish it (he was a bit nervous about it, he knows it will displease the wrong people).”

That’s the environment we live in now. It’s not good for truth or science.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 2:29 pm

“Loydo December 10, 2020 at 2:20 am

Lots of opinion but why no evidence?”

Bit like CO2 driven climate change?

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 2:38 pm

Your “no evidence” includes Jim Steele’s analysis showing that sea level FALL, not warming or SLR, cause GBR coral bleaching.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 4:17 pm

Loydo has already said evidence won’t convince him of anything, unless it’s something he already believes – which means he operates strictly on opinion – as opposed to opinion based on evidence.

Reply to  Joel Snider
December 11, 2020 12:22 am

Show you’re not lying through your teeth by producing the quote.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 1:57 am

You are the one CONTINUALLY LYING through every orifice, Loy-dumb.

You don’t have one iota of evidence in your pitiful mindless cult-like religion.

You exist ONLY on baseless anti-science opinion.

So no, Joel is being totally truthful.

Its who you are.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 2:25 am

Quote “Show you’re not lying through your teeth by producing the quote.”
Now that is hilarious coming from someone that never backs up anything they say with any evidence.
Why don’t you just go away you little tosser.
You have said it numerous times in what you have said. Are you so thick that you thought he was saying that literally. Now wonder the left is in such a sad state when you appear to be the best troll they can produce.

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 9:22 pm

Seriously , Loy ?

YOU, of all people, asking for evidence

That is petty low-level attention-seeking at it most pathetic.

Reply to  Loydo
December 10, 2020 11:26 pm

Loydo have you lost the plot.
Quote “Lots of opinion but why no evidence?”
Where is your evidence. What a stupid prat.

Peta of Newark
December 10, 2020 3:22 am

“The science institutions have become untrustworthy.”

And, the Science Institutions in question are part of Government
It goes full circle, Governments no longer trust the people.

In the UK we know that from our experience of Tony Blair as Prime Minister:-
The UK Statute Book (the definitive list of laws & criminal offences), existent since the time of the Domesday Book was tripled in size/extent inside 10 years of Blair’s premiership.
He with the help of Harriet Harman, tripled the number of criminal offences it was/is possible to commit in England and the UK

If you want A Definition of Paranoia writ large, there’s one

We are *ALL* in sooo much siht here.

December 10, 2020 3:58 am

la Ninas starting to kick in now we have semi cyclones- 2 -off WA coast and swinging over inland for one already;-)
now its time for a decent one off qld coast again
so they can bitch n kvetch about silt etc yet again
as always i will email this limk widely n hope a few bother to open it
Thanks for the Post prof Ridd;-)

December 10, 2020 5:40 am

“Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef, and tourists from elsewhere, can report the water is iridescent clear blue and totally unpolluted. The fish and coral are fabulous.”
– Peter Ridd

Peter Ridd is absolutely correct, based on my week-long exploration of many areas of the Great Barrier Reef in 2005. Pristine and magical – zillions of fish and the coral was great – best week of my life!

Kudos to Peter Ridd for his courage, by standing up to the leftist traitors who use any blatant falsehood to advance their Marxist agenda – I warned against that in 2012, below.

Went diving in the Great Barrier Reef in 2005 – it looked great to me.

Lovely country Australia – best I’ve ever been to.

Really nice people and the country is so much warmer than Canada.

This has been a very long and cold winter across North America – we are all tired of it and we pray for Spring.

Most intelligent people rejected the hypo of Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming long ago. Now even the dummies* are getting it.

* You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well half of them are stupider than that!
– George Carlin

Regards to all, Allan 🙂

Visited Oz in 2005 – what a great country!

Really nice people, great climate, beautiful vistas.

Cairns, the Tully River and the Great Barrier Reef – outstanding!

Oz has a proud history and a great future – IF you don’t let the watermelons drag you down into the mire.

The world already has too many dirty little dictatorships – we don’t need one more.

If you want to understand your “alternative future” under a watermelon dictatorship, read my first-hand description of East Germany in 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at

December 10, 2020 5:58 am

Ouch! Just discovered a typo from 2012: “The EAST German heavy equipment we were being asked to review was so primitive, compared to its West German counterparts, that there was no chance we would ever use it in Canada.”

You might enjoy the story about East German’s answer to Coke and Pepsi – called Prick Cola. Really!

Apologies for being somewhat OT – a bit more on East Germany and the Berlin Wall, and the global warming scam:

In July 1989 our group of four Canadian businessmen were in a long meeting with our East German counterparts in a very warm room in East Berlin. Our counterparts were very professional, and our interpreter was extremely capable. She wrote no notes, except for numbers, and spoke for several minutes at a time, translating long technical discourses with obvious precision.

The meeting, however, was going nowhere. The EAST German heavy equipment we were being asked to review was so primitive, compared to its West German counterparts, that there was no chance we would ever use it in Canada.

Our hosts had provided some soft drinks (aka soda pop), unrefrigerated and without ice, on the meeting table. I picked up one small bottle and noted it was called “Prick Cola”…

December 10, 2020 9:47 pm

Three questions for you Allan:
Back in 2005 how many days did you actually spend on the reef? Is that what you’re basing this on: “Ridd is absolutely correct”? Would you expect the three bleaching events of ’16, ’17 and ’20 to have had any effect since you were there?

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 2:01 am

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the El Nino bleaching events were ANYTHING BY NATURAL.?

Reefs recover very quickly from these NATURAL events..

Its part of their life cycle.

Expect a MASSIVE coral spawning this year.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 11:49 am

Crickets. Ok I’ll fill in the blanks for you
1 day

December 10, 2020 5:44 am

Attenborough claimed in his Blue Planet 2 that the GBR is 60% dead already, relatively easy to prove to be grossly incorrect. But the public seem to accept the GBR dying permanently at regular intervals, then dying again, and again, and again – how it comes back to life in between its periodic permanent die-offs is just something that right-thinking citizens don’t think about.

Thus coral death by climate change joins a long tradition of myths of death and resurrection that have inspired the faithful of many cultures for centuries and millenia.

For example, Osiris of ancient Egypt was one of the first to be associated with the mummy wrap. When his brother, Set, cut him up into pieces after killing him, Isis, his wife, found all the pieces and wrapped his body up, enabling him to return to life.

The Sumerian deity Dumuzid has a sister Inanna who dies. Dumuzid fails to adequately mourn Inanna’s death and, when she returns from the Underworld, she allows the galla demons to drag him down to the Underworld as her replacement. Inanna later regrets this decision and decrees that Dumuzid will spend half the year in the Underworld, but the other half of the year with her, while his sister Geshtinanna stays in the Underworld in his place, thus resulting in the cycle of the seasons.

In corresponding Greek mythology the goddess Aphrodite found the infant Adonis and gave him to be raised by Persephone, the queen of the Underworld. Adonis grew into an astonishingly handsome young man, causing Aphrodite and Persephone to feud over him, with Zeus eventually decreeing that Adonis would spend one third of the year in the Underworld with Persephone, one third of the year with Aphrodite, and the final third of the year with whomever he chose. Adonis chose to spend his final third of the year with Aphrodite.

Likewise Dionysus was believed to have been born from the union of Zeus and Persephone, and to have himself represented an underworld aspect of Zeus. Many believed that he had been born twice, having been killed and reborn as the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele.

In ancient Turkey the daemon god Agdistis initially bore both male and female attributes – a non-binary god! But the trans-phobic Olympian gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ and cast it away. There grew up from it an almond-tree, and when its fruit was ripe, Nana, who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius, picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant. Nana abandoned the baby (Attis). The infant was tended by a he-goat. As Attis grew, his long-haired beauty was godlike, and his mother, Cybele, then fell in love with him. And so on …

Now to add to this we have the myth of coral trolls that lie underwater staring at the moon each night. When the world of men pollute the air with their foul engines, the trolls can no longer see the moon at night. So in grief they banish the algal cells from their mineral matrix and turn as pale as the moon, in this way entreating the skies to clear and the moon to return. The moon on due course returns but the coral trolls die. However the moon urinates into the sea fertilising new growth of the coral trolls which return to life. And so the cycle of death and rebirth of the corals continues endlessly.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 10, 2020 12:44 pm

“The UNESCO World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a vast and spectacular ecosystem with one of the world’s most unique collections of biodiversity …
… it remains a vibrant, beautiful ecosystem that continues to attract millions of visitors each year”:
The Queensland Government and Attenborough cannot both be right.
The Queensland Government and/or Q tourist industry ought to sue Attenborough.

December 10, 2020 6:09 am

Question that hasn’t been addressed yet: How come no one is fussing about all the other coral reefs elsewhere in the world?

Mediterranean red coral is so badly decimated by people “harvesting” it and making it into jewelry for the Chinese market that it can’t even go to normal size. There are coral reefs all over the planet, e.g., Bahamas. In the Philippines, some of the 10,000 square miles of coral reefs are getting stressed out by over-harvesting and too much snorkel traffic, and I don’t see the greenbeaners whining about any of that.

Those are NOT the only “other” coral sources in the world, just two of many. But it’s only the GBR that matters in this world? Or do the others simply not matter to those bozos?

December 10, 2020 7:08 am

will not be worse than “critical”
Expect the reef to go to hyper critical… Perhaps even to plaid.

Thomas Gasloli
December 10, 2020 9:21 am

“The scientific foundations are rotten and none of the science organisations want to remedy the problem — partly because the science organisations, … stopped being scientific long ago. They have recognised their political power. We must recognise they have become political.”

Amen! to that.

Jim Gorman
December 10, 2020 9:32 am

MONEY! Follow the money. Money talks, and bull shite walks. Does anyone really think these “scientists” are going to give up the easy gravy train.

December 10, 2020 9:42 am

If coral scientists want to understand reef life cycles, they just have to use the coral reef Petri dish that Bikini Atoll provides, having been obliterated in the 1950s by atomic bomb tests, and now regrown to their former glory all on their own.

December 10, 2020 10:12 am

“So, how do we discredit lies without repeating them and spreading them further? The answer is simple. When reporting false statements, always lead with the truth.

UC Berkeley Cognitive Linguist George Lakoff is one of the most prominent figures to promote this idea. He suggests that when reporting one of Trump’s lies, we should always talk about the truth first. Then, we should briefly note the lie before going back to the truth. He sometimes refers to this idea as a #TruthSandwich.

This strategy might be a successful antidote to the illusory truth effect. Studies suggest that we remember beginnings and endings far better than middles, so calling out a lie – but making sure we put the lie in the middle, where we will least remember it – may help us ensure that the things that feel truthful to us actually are.”

Phil R
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 10, 2020 11:23 am

the problem with Cognitive Linguists and others of that ilk is that they actually believe their own buIIsh!t.

George Orwell’s admonition, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them” comes to mind.

Reply to  Hans Erren
December 10, 2020 2:26 pm

The warmistas themselves have a similar strategy, but in reverse. Every climate related paper, even if palaeo-climate and not supportive of CO2 control of climate, begins with what looks like a religious litany:
“In a warming world…”
“As the earth warms…”

Here’s our palaeo data showing temperature independent of CO2 or leading CO2

… But still it warms”

A lot of such “lie-truth-lie” sandwiches in the literature by authors interested in survival.

December 10, 2020 10:12 am

It blames climate change, agricultural pollution, coastal development, industry, mining, shipping, overfishing, disease, problematic native species, coal dust

So, stop development, shut down industry, cease all mining, stop shipping stuff, don’t fish, eradicate native species, and stop farming?

Reply to  TonyG
December 10, 2020 2:29 pm

The purpose of life is to end

Agent Smith

Matheus Carvalho
December 10, 2020 10:18 am

I personally know some scientists that routinely go to the great barrier reef. One of them tried to measure nitrate pollution there. I say tried, because he could not detect anything. There is no pollution. And he tried not only measuring nitrate concentration, but also its isotopes, because then it would be possible to know it any nitrate present in water could be a mixture of local and incoming nitrate. Nothing again.
This guy was a bit worried, because he said he didn’t want to publish these results, as they go against the conventional wisdom. I don’t know what he did since.

HD Hoese
December 10, 2020 11:08 am

Have zero experience with coral reef field work, but worked a little once for the first author and learned about coral reefs in graduate school. Lots of research on Pacific coral reefs after the war.
Howard T. Odum and Eugene P. Odum. 1955. Trophic Structure and Productivity of a Windward Coral Reef Community on Eniwetok Atoll. Ecological Monographs. 25(3):291-320.

However, know a little more about these. Problem?
Carballo, J. L.,et al., 2013. Boring sponges, an increasing threat for coral reefs affected by bleaching events. Ecology and Evolution. 3(4): 872–886.
Cliona vermifera most common. “Although there is not a significant correlation, the line representing the ‘best fit’ for the data shows that in well preserved coral reefs with a high coral coverage (to the right of the plot) the invasion by sponges in the detached colonies are lesser than in bad preserved reefs (to the left).”

Am actually an expert!! Hoese, H. D. 1972. Another boring sponge, Cliona vermifera Hancock, new to the southeastern U. S. Chesapeake Science. 13(3): 232-233.

December 10, 2020 2:27 pm

Of course, under the conditions of La Niña, the temperature rises to a great depth in the western equatorial Pacific. The most important thing, however, is strong upwelling thanks to the strong wind from east.

“The trade winds, in piling up water in the Western Pacific, make a deep 450 feet (150 meter) warm layer in the west that pushes the thermocline down, while it rises in the east.
The shallow 90 feet (30 meter) eastern thermocline allows the winds to pull up water from below, water that is generally much richer in nutrients than the surface layer.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights