Visit our Popular Forums

RaymondR · 13-10-2020, 22:30

I think that report may be based on studies from ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies which is part of the institution which fired professor Ridd for his assertions of poor quality control of scientific papers.

**StuM** · 13-10-2020, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I think that report may be based on studies from ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies which is part of the institution which fired professor Ridd for his assertions of poor quality control of scientific papers.

Yep and Terry Hughes is the one that complained about Ridd's criticisms of the sloppiness of his study that the quoted article is based on.

Blue Heeler · 14-10-2020, 01:37

“Peter Ridd raises almost all of his research funds from the profits of consultancy work which is usually associated with monitoring of marine dredging operation,” his profile noted. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180417...atory/about-us
https://web.archive.org/web/20180321...ces/consulting

Just for a little transparency!

**GordMay** · 14-10-2020, 03:44

According to Peter Ridd & RaymondR, the reef is in great shape, the science is probably wrong, and Ridd is a world renowned reef expert, in a historic fight for freedom.

One way of measuring a scientists professional reputation, is to look at how many times other scientists cite their studies.
Dr. Peter Ridd’s ResearchGate page shows his work has been cited 3,804 times.
For comparison, according to ResearchGate, Terry Hughes* (Director of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies @ JCU) has been cited 57,000 times.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg*, of the University of Queensland, and a pioneer of coral bleaching research, has also been cited 52,567) times.

Ridd (3,804) ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Ridd
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Ridd/4

Hughes (57,000) ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terence_Hughes

Hoegh-Guldberg (52,567) ➥ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ove_Hoegh-Guldberg

* Two of Ridd’s prominent victims.

**StuM** · 14-10-2020, 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

One way of measuring a scientists professional reputation, is to look at how many times other scientists cite their studies.
...

* Two of Ridd’s prominent victims.

* Two of the alarmists on the CAGW bandwagon who are a big part of the echo chamber (they constantly cite each other).

Guess what - the echo chamber doesn't cite Ridd, he doesn't fit the agenda.

Blue Heeler · 14-10-2020, 04:40

So one guy and his fellow scientists are funded by piddly government grants and work to protect and preserve one of the worlds greatest natural wonders and the other guy is heavily relying on coal industry funding to carry out “research” to allow marine activity around the loading facilities.........sorry but I’m just not buying your argument.

**GordMay** · 14-10-2020, 04:43

Half the corals on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have died, over the past 25 years, scientists said Wednesday, warning that climate change is irreversibly destroying the World Heritage-listed underwater ecosystem.
A study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal found an alarming rate of decline across all sizes of corals since the mid-1990s.
Larger species, such as branching and table-shaped corals, have been worst affected; almost disappearing from the far northern reaches of the reef, researchers found.
They’re typically depleted by (up to) 80 or 90 percent compared to 25 years ago.
On top of long-term ocean warming, and associated bleaching, the reef has been battered by several cyclones, and two large outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish (which eat the coral) since 1995.
➥ https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-re...alf-its-corals

"Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef” ~ by Dietzel A, Bode M, Connolly S, Hughes T.
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2020.1432

Photos are available for media use here.
➥ https://www.dropbox.com/sh/61pfc52mj...S2eT0O_Fa?dl=0

valhalla360 · 14-10-2020, 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Yes. Old thing of correlation vs. causation.

However, if we assumed our polluting and overpopulating DOES NOT CAUSE climate change then is this a good reason to NOT stop polluting and overpopulating?

Of course not but it does mean we don't have to operate in panic mode.

Panic mode is rarely efficient or effective and it often causes unintended consequences. But this is exactly how the eco-faith operates...the world will end unless we immediately bow to their agenda. Hurry do it now and we'll see if it's effective later. (PS: when we do bow to their agenda, they set up new goal posts.)

valhalla360 · 14-10-2020, 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Heeler

So one guy and his fellow scientists are funded by piddly government grants and work to protect and preserve one of the worlds greatest natural wonders and the other guy is heavily relying on coal industry funding to carry out “research” to allow marine activity around the loading facilities.........sorry but I’m just not buying your argument.

You don't know much about government grants if you refer to them as "piddly" or think they come out as independent reviews with no agenda.

Blue Heeler · 14-10-2020, 06:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You don't know much about government grants if you refer to them as "piddly" or think they come out as independent reviews with no agenda.

I tell you what I’ll reword it just for you so we can get back to the crux of what I said. I’m still not buying it!

So one guy and his fellow scientists are funded by government grants and work to protect and preserve one of the worlds greatest natural wonders and the other guy is heavily relying on coal industry funding to carry out “research” to allow marine activity around the loading facilities.........sorry but I’m just not buying your argument.

Lake-Effect · 14-10-2020, 07:08

I love how the "reef is just fine" argument has immediately sunk (again) to a referendum on ONE guy.

How about... science? Can anyone make their case on the studies that have been done (or are being done)?

**GordMay** · 14-10-2020, 07:23

“Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef” ~ by Dietzel A, Bode M, Connolly S, Hughes T.
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2020.1432

"... Coral colony abundances on reef crests and slopes have declined sharply across all colony size classes and in all coral taxa compared to historical baselines. Declines were particularly pronounced in the northern and central regions of the Great Barrier Reef, following mass coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017. The relative abundances of large colonies remained relatively stable, but this apparent stability masks steep declines in absolute abundance. The potential for recovery of older fecund corals is uncertain given the increasing frequency and intensity of disturbance events. The systematic decline in smaller colonies across regions, habitats and taxa, suggests that a decline in recruitment has further eroded the recovery potential and resilience of coral populations ..."

The Great Barrier Reef has lost half its corals
➥ https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-tgb101220.php

And ➥ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54533971

Lake-Effect · 14-10-2020, 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360

... But this is exactly how the eco-faith operates...the world will end unless we immediately bow to their agenda. Hurry do it now and we'll see if it's effective later. (PS: when we do bow to their agenda, they set up new goal posts.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

Guess what - the echo chamber doesn't cite Ridd, he doesn't fit the agenda.

Agenda, agenda, agenda... WHAT is "the agenda" of which you people speak? Gotta link? Does it actually exist outside of the cynical distortion field emitted by most "skeptics"?

**GordMay** · 14-10-2020, 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Agenda, agenda, agenda... WHAT is "the agenda" of which you people speak? Gotta link? Does it actually exist outside of the cynical distortion field emitted by most "skeptics"?

“The Great Great Barrier Reef Swindle” ~ by Peter Ridd
➥ https://web.archive.org/web/20160307...p?article=6134
“... “There is a swindle by scientists, politicians and most green organisations regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). We are told that the reef is a third of the way to ecological extinction, is being smothered by sediments, is polluted by nutrients and pesticides, and is being cooked by global warming ...
... If our future brings us total self-annihilation by nuclear war, pollution or global warming, my bet is that both cockroaches and corals will survive ..."

His thesis? Hundreds of scientists, who work on the Great Barrier Reef, are all also involved in the same sort of cover-up and conspiracy. It's the old argument, that scientists are feathering their nests, and that they have to mention the “CC” word to get funded.