Jennifer Marohasy
I am very privileged to have some wonderful friends, who still take the time to observe nature. Once upon a time we found these people in universities studying the natural sciences, now we are perhaps more likely to find them in film school or at iNaturalist.
One of the best ways to know something about the underwater world, including Great Barrier Reef ecosystems, is to strap an air tank to your back and step into the Coral Sea. If you take a camera, you may have a permanent record of what you observe.
This is the beginnings of being a marine biologist. Observation is fundamental to science; science begins with gathering information.
To be a real biologist you must make your own direct observations about the natural world. You can’t be a biologist and rely on the observations of others, they must be your own. If you relied mostly on the measurements of others, then it would be like claiming to be a photographer but only republishing photographs taken by others. You may be a publisher, but not a photographer. It would be deceitful to claim otherwise.
Some people are like this. They take the work of others and claim it as their own. It may be measurements, or it may be photographs. Of course, some photographs can be transcribed and understood as numbers, or they can be a direct measure of something.
Photographs have tremendous value in science.
When I knelt next to that giant coral on the sandy sea floor in the Garden of Porites at Myrmidon reef some years ago, and when Stuart Ireland took a photograph of me beside it, for sure we already now had a permanent record of the size of that monster coral. At one level I functioned as a yardstick of its size. From knowing my height, it would be possible to calculate the height of the coral. In fact, we went on to measure the height and width of that same coral with a tape measure.
For sure, you can be a data analysis by relying on information from others, but a scientist gathers their own information however limited and however imprecise.
You can become very famous never making your own direct observations, never looking through a telescope at the stars yourself, for example. But please don’t tell me that you are a scientist. That would be deceitful. To repeat, you may be an analyst who is good at self promotion even a manager with a large team, but that doesn’t make you a scientist. You may have your name on so many scientific papers, but if you have no first hand knowledge of how the data was gathered. That doesn’t make you a scientist.
To be sure, if you are really a marine biologist then you will have observed the underwater world up-close with your own eyes, just as if you are really an underwater photographer you take your own photographs underwater. You don’t republish photographs from others, and claim them as your own.
Photographers and cinematographers who know and understand their craft are always in search of authenticity. They are looking for images that are not only an accurate representation of the world, but that also invoke feelings. They are after much more than click bait on social media, or fame and money in the commercial world. They know that they are unlikely to ever be properly financially compensated for their efforts. After all, we increasingly live in a world that places little value on real knowledge and its accurate representation.
I have been listening to an audiobook that my daughter recommended, entitled ‘Why We Remember – The Science of Memory and How it Shapes Us’ by Dr Charan Ranganath. It explains that as individuals we make decisions based on our feelings, that are a consequence of what we remember. Much of this happens beyond the reach of our rational and conscious mind. So, the stories that we tell our children, the photograph we keep, and the films we watch, they all matter.
It is not just the facts that make a difference, in fact the choices we make – good and bad – are often made irrespective of the facts of the matters before us. It is how we remember the world that matters most.
Perhaps this is why families that have first-hand experience of the natural world know that it can be beautiful, and it can also be very destructive – many fishers, farmers and indigenous Australians remember this. That nature gives, and nature also takes away.
Scuba divers, rock climbers and bushwalkers also have some knowledge of this, people who get out into nature often see the natural cycles of death and regeneration.
Many people now live in apartments in cities so removed from nature. This makes them so vulnerable to nonsense stories suggesting that coral cover, for example, must be increasing at the Great Barrier Reef, or it must be in terminal decline. What they believe is more likely to depend on how the AI in their social media feed has categorised them and their interests. These city people often fail to understand – because they have no memory – that more usually there are natural cycles of destruction and then regrowth in the real world.
Stuart Ireland emailed me this morning with photographs of terrible destruction from Tropical Cyclone Jasper.

He sent me the two photographs with a short note:
On my way back from Cooktown on the weekend … witnessed what Jasper did to rivers and creeks near Wudaj Wudaj.
They are saying the weather event here was a 1/2,000-year event compared to Cairns 1/100 year.
The power of water is amazing but devastating … a water hole we used to swim at, gorgeous mountain stream, reduced to barren riverbed.
Photographs taken in almost same spot. They have reconstructed the whole road.
It’s just like how we felt diving John Brewer Reef after TC Kirrily.
Tropical Cyclone Kirrily did a lot of damage to John Brewer reef and we dived that reef soon after the destruction, and Stuart Ireland who is a marine biologist and cinematographer recorded it all. As I explained in one of my very first short films, entitled ‘Beige Reef’ to film a coral reef is to acknowledge it, and also to provide a permanent record of the state of that reef for that moment in time.
The other thing my daughter has recommended recently is a ‘Mood App’. I’ve just had a look to see if my app. has a word to perhaps better explain my feelings when I dived John Brewer with Stuart just three weeks after TC Kirrily. Perhaps the most accurate word, to describe my feelings at that time is:
Stunned
Then I went back some few weeks later and I felt very differently. I could already see signs of recovery and I felt, perhaps the best word is:
Optimistic
Just as the river bed that Stuart photographed on the weekend, it won’t stay a barren riverbed, and so John Brewer reef is already showing real signs of recovery. And the fish never deserted this reef. As I wrote in a blog post back in April:
When I first visited John Brewer Reef after Tropical Cyclone Kirrily my stomach churned, wondering if this jewel-in-the-crown would become so infested with algae the corals would all be smothered. Diving the reef again last Thursday, ten weeks after TC Kirrily, I can see that there is something different and special about this location.
There are large schools of algal-eating fish passing through, mowing the algae as one might mow grass. And so, from the pieces of broken coral that have fallen from the reef crest, there is opportunity for new growth.
When we witness and acknowledge destruction, there is opportunity to also know that regeneration can follow. We can know and remember that nature is cycles.
There is opportunity to become so much less susceptible to the propaganda that tends to either deny what is happening with weather and climate or to suggest it is unprecedented.
I have often wondered. How can it be that the ‘experts’ tend to see ‘nothing’ or ‘catastrophe’. How is it that the natural cycles of life escape them?
Then I realised this morning, after receiving the email from Stuart with the two photographs – if these experts have never been into nature, or if they have not been often enough, with their eyes properly open to the experience, and if they have not made their own observations, they will lack experience and they will lack context.
That is why it is so important going forward, that we begin to rely more on people who know something about the Great Barrier Reef from first-hand experience, from decades of experience getting into the water and seeing how it changes with their own eyes. This is why we must begin to reject the false knowledge from academics who may actually know very little of real value and as a consequence their narrations may not actually be authentic. When we are mislead, we lose resilience both as individuals and as a civilisation.

Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Jennifer: Your thoughts on direct observation and marine biology reminded me of the late Sarah Andrews’ white paper: “Spatial Thinking with a Difference: An Unorthodox Treatise on the Mind of the Geologist”. She is also one who believes in direct observation of the natural world. It is well worth a read.
Every (about) two weeks a natural area very near me suffers a Man-made disaster.
A gas powered lawn mower cuts the grass.
But it always seems to recover and needs to be cut again.
No surprise that Nature can recover from a Natural (or even a Man-made) disaster.
(Cue George Carlin.)
This is just nonsense: “You can become very famous never making your own direct observations, never looking through a telescope at the stars yourself, for example. But please don’t tell me that you are a scientist. That would be deceitful. “
Just think about the Hubble telescope or the James Webb telescope. Nobody has ever looked through them at the stars but that doesn’t mean the people who use them are not scientists. Nobody has ever “looked” through an electron microscope or an atomic force microscope but again the people who use them are still scientists. Modern scientific instruments like the large hadron collider or a synchrotron are designed to be operated remotely with users being in a different country from the instrument. But the people doing that are still scientists.
Izaak, are you pulling a shift today for NickPick?
You tell me. Was Einstein a scientist? Or Dirac or Feynman? None of them ever did a single experiment but all changed the way we think about the world. There are as many different kinds of scientists as there are people doing science and trying to needlessly restrict the definition is a waste of time and doesn’t achieve anything.
All anyone has to do to “do science” is follow the classic scientific method.
Which includes “observations” as well as “experimentation”.
(not that “new science” that the Dems are pushing in US schools and unis, whereby the null hypothesis is replaced by “expert consensus”)
You are talking irrelevant gibberish, yet again, Izzydumb.
Einstein was fond of doing thought experiments because many of the things he dealt with were not amenable to visiting. However, over the last century, many hands-on style scientists have actually done things like observe solar eclipses and taken measurements that confirm his equations. Without the field confirmations, Einstein’s equations would have remained speculation.
You are talking totally irrelevant GIBBERISH again, Izzydumb. !
And no, people flying in airplanes making activist-style notes.. are NOT scientists.
but people flying in planes doing remote surveys are. You can use infra-red, lidar, radar etc from a plane to make detailed observations of the land or you can use sensors to detect changes in the local gravitational field to find oil deposits without ever touch the ground beneath you. These are things that scientists do and do with remarkable precision.
Yeah but just taking pics out the aircraft window from 500 ft high and 120 mph is a bit “tourist 101”, don’t you think Izzy?
Yep, those are real engineers and scientists.
Taking pictures of the surface water and pretending you can see the coral.. is not !
It is ANTI-science.. The sort you worship.
Izaak: You are clearly unaware of the reference here. The flying over the reef and taking pictures by AIMS marine biologists is how the alarm that the reef was in its last death throes a couple of years ago. Prof Ridd lost his job for criticizing the inappropriate methods being used.
Marine biologist Jennifer Morohasy, dived and made a movie of a few of the coral sites pronounced dead by AIMS, finding these areas healthy and teeming with life. She produced the film with voice over for a broader audience. And proof! A report comes out from AIMS heralding not only a miraculous recovery, but the reef broke all records virtually from end to end over its entire extent and breadth for healthy coral! In 2 Years from moribund to the highest peak of pink! Would you believe? GET SMART.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hd2e_tRBlY
Oh yeah! AIMS didn’t know that photographing beige healthy coral through the aquamarine filter of the seawater caused the reef to appear gray, the color of bleached dead coral! (oops!)
Was it really necessary to comment? Take a break from misinterpreting everything posted here. It must be exhausting to misunderstand so often and work yourself into a conniption.
There’s a pattern with “climate catastrophe” events that are regularly reported in the msm..
It seems that they almost exclusively only occur in remote localities where the average inquisitive person without a government study grant can’t really get to.
So first-hand reportage from the front by Jennifer et al is greatly valued and appreciated.
There are many ecosystems where ‘destruction’ is a natural part of the ‘lifecycle’.
Corals evolved to withstand bleaching and cyclones. They are also prolific, reproducing both by budding and by spawning.
Lodgepole pine cones won’t open and release seeds unless there is a hot forest fire destroying the forest that produced the cones. Grows back quickly to be tall and thin—hence Native American use as lodge poles.
On my Wisconsin dairy farm, the former burr oak grass savanna was maintained by occasional prairie fires clearing intruding brush that all but the youngest burr oaks easily withstand.
On the treeless open US prairie, the prairie grasses evolved deep roots to survive hot dry summers that are unaffected by the fires that periodically burn the above ground portions.
“unless there is a hot forest fire “
Same with many Australian species, eg banksia, wattle, etc etc
They actually NEED fire to germinate.
and many varieties of eucalyptus trees.
(I’d also mention “black boys”, which apparently is verboten these days)
Probably hard to find a “bush” species that doesn’t need fire in its life cycle. 🙂
They wouldn’t last long otherwise.
I don’t see how this is helpful.
The underlying comment is that nature is really good at self-recovery after a damage “event”.
And that people who sit behind desks looking at excel spreadsheet and models etc without any real experience of the great outdoors, are not likely to fully understand the relevance of “nature”.
Wouldn’t you agree that Michael Mann could make the same argument?
Something doesn’t have to be helpful to be informative.
This post, however, shows how getting off your backside and using your senses to observe nature yields considerably more data than sitting at a computer screen or using second/thirdhand data.
Especially given getting off your backside and observing nature first person is an excellent means of validating and verifying the data in your computer.
In science and engineering, verification is everything. Nothing I have seen to date and I have been studying this for over 20 years, has demonstrated anything akin to verification.
I can’t even list a single occurrence where the climate model software went through formal software verification and validation. Likewise the use case scenarios fed into those models to make their projections.
This statement is, of course, complete garbage. Let’s keep it accurate Jen.
Of course your statement is complete garbage.
It would be great to know why it is complete garbage. I am suggesting that observation is the beginning. You may have a team who subsequently does the measuring for you. But in the first instance you need to be observing, however, indirectly, something flickering or changing out there in the real world. :-).
So if I take an ice core measurement from someone else’s work and develop an hypothesis based on their observations, then have a third party test that hypothesis, I am not a scientist because I did not actually look at the ice?
We are not talking about quality here. Most scientist’s work turns out to be wrong anyway.
Lefties don’t do tradeoffs only absolute Utopias-
Impacts of industrial renewables in Queensland. (youtube.com)
You see certain runoff is more equal than others along with forever waste like nukes-
bulldozer burying wind turbine blades – Search Images (bing.com)
“To be a real biologist you must make your own direct observations about the natural world” I guess virologists, immunologists, microbiologists and hematologists will surely be disappointed to know they are not biologists, as they require instruments to observe their field of study.
I think the quality and thoughtfulness of this statement accurately reflects the quality of the article.
I think the quality of your posts is similar to those from a brain-dead monkey.
All the people you mention deal DIRECTLY and CLOSELY with their work, using microscopes, cultures etc etc all the time.
They are constantly making observations of what the viruses etc are doing, naturally.
Just like Jen is making direct observations of the living coral.
you cannot make a direct observation of a viruses. Nor can they even be seen using an optical microscope. You need to use an electron microscope to “see” a virus and once you put them into an electron microscope you are hardly observing what they are doing naturally. At best all you can do is make a correlation between the presence of viruses in bodily fluids and the people getting sick.
Oh wow… how ignorant you are. !!
You really think virologists don’t get up-close with the virus they are studying.
Why would they need all that elaborate protective clothing otherwise.
You really are a gormless twit !!
Shouldn’t that be spelled “Gore-em less?” 🙂
Those you mention are not taking second hand data exclusively and publishing conclusions. Yes, they are using instruments, but they are actually observing.
I so agree. I remember getting, seeing and analysing my first images from an electron microscope back in the early 1980s. so much detail. such a direct observation even if I had to kill the insect first. :-).
“Their size also makes a majority of viruses impossible to see under a light microscope.”
A “majority,” but not all.
https://www.microscopemaster.com/viruses-under-the-microscope.html
BTY, my brother has a PhD in microbiology.
I know the work he does.
Don’t try to tell me they don’t get right to the source, to nature.
You out yourself as a totally ignorant cretin every time you make a comment.
I can not make a current measurement in an electrical circuit without an ammeter. Using a camera, air tanks, scuba gear, etc., is using instruments to facilitate the observations.\
I think you need to open your mind a bit.
thank you. the analogy works for me. :-).
Looking through a microscope is a direction observation, in my opinion. But getting a heap of numbers, and attempting some analysis of them as say, Michael Mann did, that is not direct observation. :-).
You are thinking too literally. Using a microscope is fundamentally no different than wearing glasses to correct nearsightedness. Researchers observe more than just the pathogen. They observe the symptoms of a disease, and any and all environmental factors that may play a role in an infection. The point is, made by Jennifer above, it all has to start with observations, even if only qualitative.
For once i do not understand the pushed idea of relying on yr own observations and that you are not a scientist when you don’t do that.
I think it’s best for a scientist to be personally involved in observations in some way. However, you are a scientist if you are using statistics and analyses using observations by others and also questioning the methods. Or being a physicist using elemental particles he/ she never have seen. For every Darwin there is an Einstein ( well, not quite🙂). Usually, biologist can observe nature more easily as a physicist. So, in order to verify statements, observations can be used, personally, by actually visiting a coral reef or by trusting others’ observations. The issue lies w the extrapolations, prospects, models and linearity. That is speculation and stating hypotheses. And then finding data to put it in a theory. I still believe that anything concerning the climate cannot reach the theory level. A priori. But you can observe things like a coral reef and put some conclusion forwards.
I agree, to some limited extent. You make some good points. Perhaps we disagree on what we classify as an ‘observation’. I think if a physicist, for example, is seeing how light is reflected, or how the atmosphere affects ocean currents, however, direclty or indirectly, this is still an observation. It is making a direct, however, imprecise connection between some thing happening in the real world and then going on to design an experiment, or gather more data; that is the beginnings of being a scientist and doing science. But, if Michael Mann, for example, just took someone else’s large data base, and attempted some analysis with an agenda, it should be noted that he is not really a scientist. He is not attempting to understand climate change, and we now know that he never really understood that data that he was working with. I see the same at coral reefs, and with global temperatures. People who claim to be scientists take some convenient data that someone else has gathered, and do some analysis, and then claim a particular result. It would be best, in the first instance, if they were asked if they understand the data they are working with.
Mr Mann is clearly a grifter. But let’s suppose some biologist observes a piece of coral reef for a particular time say, after a big storm and for the next year. He might conclude that the coral has been damaged beyond repair. But someone who has not actually been to a reef and uses statistical data of observations by others to analyse damage and recovery over a longer period of time could make a good case for x. Now, who is the scientist here? And btw, didnt Cristy use weather station data for his analysis in his famous graph? Or did he observed the measurements himself?
Do you see my point?
All too often, they demonstrate that they don’t understand the data. And, as Mann has demonstrated, they often don’t understand the mathematics they use.
Nature destroys, then nature repairs. It was ever thus.
Nature also repairs man’s damage.
One of the wonderful things about getting into the South Pacific Ocean and looking about, is noticing that the fish and the corals are so unaffected by what is happening on land, by us. There are real cycles of death and regeneration, and we can not affect or change them in anyway. The Great Barrier Reef is too large an ecosystem for us to have any impact on, ever. That is my observation.
Agree Jennifer.
I believe that if all people interested in the GBR could do as I did in 1975, fly from Brisbane to Port Moresby on a clear day directly above the GBR all the way at just ~ 11,000 ft in a B727 for 3 hours, they would quickly appreciate just how huge and relatively remote the outer reef is.
And how diverse it is in appearances.