The Reef Ain't Dead

[Cliffhanger]

Originally Posted by StuM

Evidence?

Evidence? Yeah heaps. This is a good, balanced resource: GBRMPA - Coral bleaching 101

There is also a truckload of other research papers published in the most reputable journals such as Nature. Prof Terry Hughes is a good one to look up.

As for the ridiculous notion that researchers routinely distort findings to get grants is laughable. Only someone who has no idea about research would suggest this.

[Rjt]

Raymondr, it’s disheartening to see so much good science misrepresented. Your misunderstanding of the science, and misquoting, is extraordinary. Please check some of your claims and have a long think about them.

[StuM]

"60% bleached already"

Er, not really. From your link:

"Of the 1036 reefs surveyed by scientists in a plane, 60% had either moderate or severe bleaching. However, this doesn’t mean all the corals on those reefs were bleached, nor does it equate to 60% of the entire Reef."

And it you look into it further:
25% of the surveyed reefs were rated severe (60% or more of visible (shallow water) coral bleached.)
35% moderate (10-50%)
40% little or no bleaching

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by joelhemington

Too many scientists scrambling for grants out there looking for problems that don't exist.

they are paid to find something so they do. problem is they usually find what they are told to find.

[RaymondR]

I seem to recall that Rid was able to show that photographs used to document one of the papers he was critical of proved not to even be of the section of reef the subject of the paper.

I tend to the opinion that if you need to fire your critics to silence them you have something to hide.

Changing base data is corrupting it and any conclusions drawn from corrupt data is corrupt and consequently untrustworthy. When Ridd's protagonists called on management to misuse their authority to silence him they lost the argument in my view.

[Cliffhanger]

Originally Posted by StuM

"60% bleached already"

Er, not really. From your link:

"Of the 1036 reefs surveyed by scientists in a plane, 60% had either moderate or severe bleaching. However, this doesn’t mean all the corals on those reefs were bleached, nor does it equate to 60% of the entire Reef."

And it you look into it further:
25% of the surveyed reefs were rated severe (60% or more of visible (shallow water) coral bleached.)
35% moderate (10-50%)
40% little or no bleaching

You are right, my statement was sloppy. I should have said "60% of reefs are affected by moderate or severe bleaching already" Thanks for picking this up. But despite my lack of precision, there is overwhelming evidence that a significant amount of the coral reefs worldwide are under severe stress. And that climate change is a significant contributor.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

... If Ridd does raise the funds to take the case to the High Court it will be interesting to see the outcome ...

FWIW:

Dr. Peter Ridd has lost on appeal:
“... The orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 6 September 2019 be set aside ...”
JCU appealed the judgement and the federal court upheld the appeal basically arguing that the original judge had put too much emphasis on the Enterprise Agreement and that universities as employers have the right to manage their employees.
James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123 ➥ https://catallaxyfiles.com/files/202...-FCAFC-123.pdf

According to Judge Vasta, Peter Ridd’s trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement, NOT freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, NOR the condition of the reef.

The original decision, favouring Dr. Ridd:
RIDD v JAMESCOOK UNIVERSITY[2019] FCCA 997
➥ https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com...-fcca-997-.pdf

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

FWIW:

Dr. Peter Ridd has lost on appeal:
“... The orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 6 September 2019 be set aside ...”
JCU appealed the judgement and the federal court upheld the appeal basically arguing that the original judge had put too much emphasis on the Enterprise Agreement and that universities as employers have the right to manage their employees.
James Cook University v Ridd [2020] FCAFC 123 ➥ https://catallaxyfiles.com/files/202...-FCAFC-123.pdf

According to Judge Vasta, Peter Ridd’s trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement, NOT freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, NOR the condition of the reef.

The original decision, favouring Dr. Ridd:
RIDD v JAMESCOOK UNIVERSITY[2019] FCCA 997
➥ https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com...-fcca-997-.pdf

That's the pure legalistic viewpoint, the High Court often takes a more comprehensive view of these matters. In overturning the Hawke governments political legislation the court found that their was an implied right of free speech contained in the Australian Constitution even though there is not a single word therein on rights of free speech.

If it gets to the High Court it may well find that science and a society which increasingly utilizes scientific methods to resolve issues is much better served by rigorous, open, honest, objective review of output rather than catering to the marketing wants of tertiary education marketing departments.

The Court might also take the view that any attack on the security of tenure of university professors, is an attack on the security of tenure of all so privileged. After all these privileges are granted to allow freedom of expression without fear of retribution by the holder. Who might be next once this custom is overthrown, judges perhaps.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

valhalla360 doesn't have the first clue how science works, he's just parroting some ginned-up talking points.

So a ginned-up talking point...that is basically a mirror image of your ginned-up talking point. But magically, when you use it, it's "following the science".

How many peer reviewed papers have you published or done formal review on? I have around a dozen published and done formal review on many more.

[Tetepare]

There is no "The Reef" any more than there is "The Cove" or "The bar." It exists only at the extremes of individual perspective (e.g. The Reef outside my door) and global talking heads. Even GBR is not "The Reef" it is an ecosystem replicated over hundreds of km and reflective of similar ecosystems around the globe.


Clearly some reefs have been destroyed by mankind; it's easy to find wasted reefs outside population areas. Others they say have been indirectly damaged or destroyed by mankind (e.g., removal of pelagics.)


Other reefs have been destroyed by time. There is more than one heartfelt video showing "destroyed reefs" that are, in fact, fossilized! That doesn't help any real discussion.


I've dove reefs in place most have never heard of- Maui, Sava'i, Raro, Rakiraki, Ovalau, Vava'u, Vila, Munda, Tetepare, Townsville and Palm Is, Koror and Kayangel, Aru, Pohnpei, Ambergris, Caulker, the list goes on.



Ravages by man resulting in near-total destruction are readily apparent, whether sewage or dynamite. On the other end, not ironically remote reefs are far more healthy, far more pristine. In the middle are live, but crappy reefs like much of Belize and Vitu Levu.



There is a direct correlation between reef health and proximity to urban areas. All funded academics aside, and the politically bipolar "supporting facts", I don't understand why governments can't start with the simple and obvious, and work from there. If the experts can figure out how to fix Suva Bay, they'd learn a lot that could be applied to, shall I say, more controversial regions.

[SunBurn]

Originally Posted by masknfins

You make some good points and some poor ones. I have no problem with contrasting teams to vet research. The fact that only a small percentage of the great barrier reef is dead/damaged does not disprove climate change and I have personally seen bleached out reefs in the Seychelles and Maldives where the only reasonable explanation is warming seas. It may just be a matter of time. And please leave Covid out of this unless you don't trust doctors either. I live in the states with near 200k dead, two whom I know including a 54 year old woman.

Reef Bleaching is a process that has been occurring for millions of years. We saw many healthy reefs away from bays and inlets in the Mauritius and Seychelles. Coral buildups not marked on a 15 year old chart took a bit out of our boat in the Seychelles.

[HeinSdL]

What a nonsense all this. It's either large chunks of the US burning or it's large chunks of Australia burning and the Amazon burns more or less full time; the ocean's fish have been replaced to a large extent by plastic, with the latter being consumed by the remaining fish still swimming around; the year-round ice here in Switzerland where I am is more or less disappearing (which is not surprising as I sit here in 30 degC more than halfway through September) and yet we talk in terms of "so called" global warming. We are truly f****d, due to our arrogance & ignorance.

I find all this highly disappointing, coming out of a community such as this.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

:snip: the year-round ice here in Switzerland where I am is more or less disappearing (which is not surprising as I sit here in 30 degC more than halfway through September) and yet we talk in terms of "so called" global warming. We are truly f****d, due to our arrogance & ignorance.

I find all this highly disappointing, coming out of a community such as this.

I tend to believe the politicizing of the climate issue is its own downfall. Where the term *so-called* climate change is used, most that I know are referring to the cause, and not actually the climate itself. In the 1970s and 1980s, at least in the US there were television documentaries on the science and research done on the planet's climate. It was verified by scientists at the time the planet has gone through some 14 or 15 significant climate shifts in roughly the last million years. Evidence shows those shifts were on a regular pattern, plus or minus a few thousand years. According to the established pattern, the planet was actually past due for such a shift by a few thousand years.
Now we are being told this *climate change* is caused by man. Anyone who does not agree is labeled a *science denier* and ridiculed.
It seems to me, if anyone is denying science, it would be those who ignore the established pattern revealed by science.
As a species, man has done a terrible job preserving our planet. We have created what I imagine other intelligent life would call the *cesspool* of the universe. However true that may be, I would consider it arrogant as well to think man is capable of stopping the planets natural life cycle.. Either way, I agree we are f****d

[TravelinLight]

I seem to remember from history class that people who questioned the leaders / scientists of the time / established "norms" were ridiculed and in some instances killed for not towing the line.

The earth is flat
The Earth is the center of the universe
Creation is the explanation for us being here

To think that the climate has not been changing for 3.5 billion years is silly. To be so arrogant to think that man in a very short time has completely changed the cycle is silly. Could we be much better? Yes but I remember from school that the polar bears should have been extinct 20 years ago.

Natural wildfires, volcanos erupting, and a host of natural instances where the carbon impact far eclipses man's contribution. We should reduce where possible, but again there is huge money to be made in the new Climate Change Religion in the name of science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

... we talk in terms of "so called" global warming. We are truly f****d, due to our arrogance & ignorance.

I find all this highly disappointing, coming out of a community such as this.

It shouldn't be that surprising, given the demographics of the average yacht-owner. Age, nationality, social class, wealth, political lean ... people who made their pile and have, or had, a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of growth, growth, growth.

(not all cruisers, of course)

I always get in trouble for bringing that up, but it does explain a lot.