Great Barrier Reef: Signs of recovery despite major coral bleaching (1 Viewer)

[Renae]

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

[FONT=&quot]THE Great Barrier Reef’s most popular tourist sites show just two per cent of coral has died off, with the rest in “positive” signs of recovery, [/FONT]despite the world’s biggest mass coral bleaching event on record[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]New research found about 68 per cent of reefs from Cairns to Lizard Island had varying levels of coral bleaching, but most of it likened to sunburn on a human body where the coral glows pink before fully recovering.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Latest findings by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre give hope about the resilience of the living wonder after scientists this week revealed 93 per cent of the 2300km-long reef system was in the grip of a mass bleaching event.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“It’s the Great White Lie,” said Col McKenzie, chief executive of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators. “It’s not dead, white and dying. It’s under stress but it will bounce back.’’[/FONT]

Interesting.

 

[Jack Hays]

No Cookies | The Courier Mail



Interesting.

Yup. Interesting indeed.:mrgreen:

 

[Renae]

Yup. Interesting indeed.:mrgreen:

It appears, that despite some claims to the contrary, the Great Barrier reef is not on deaths doorstep. Do we, need to make sure we are not polluting the waters, doing what we can to negate our impact to this natural treasure? Certainly, but hysteria doesn't help.

 

[Threegoofs]

No Cookies | The Courier Mail



Interesting.

Yeah. Interesting that the guys who run tours are insisting they know more than the scientists studying it, and news stories are running telling people 'everything is OK, come on down!'.

Your source is so objective!

The other amusing thing is that Australia is pouring $2 billion into protecting the reef from AGW in the article, while I see you and others in other threads claiming that AGW won't cost a thing, and that the financial impact is overblown...

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I would love for that to be true and I hope it is. But the tourist industry has a strong financial interest in convincing prospective tourists that all is well. I'll wait on actual ecological surveys of the reefs before I get excited.

 

[Aberration]

Yeah. Interesting that the guys who run tours are insisting they know more than the scientists studying it, and news stories are running telling people 'everything is OK, come on down!'.

Your source is so objective!

The other amusing thing is that Australia is pouring $2 billion into protecting the reef from AGW in the article, while I see you and others in other threads claiming that AGW won't cost a thing, and that the financial impact is overblown...

Your logic is flawed. Just because the government decides to poor $2B into the reefs doesn't mean it's needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Poor Debater]

It appears, that despite some claims to the contrary, the Great Barrier reef is not on deaths doorstep. Do we, need to make sure we are not polluting the waters, doing what we can to negate our impact to this natural treasure? Certainly, but hysteria doesn't help.

The "major tourist areas" mentioned in the story is the far southern end, near Brisbane. Tourists go there because it's accessible. But the southern end of the GBR isn't the part that's in trouble, it's the northern part, which is much less accessible to tourists.

Meanwhile, it's so completely predictable that the spox for the tourism industry claims there are no problems, everybody come. Only a dupe would fall for such blatant PR. Oh wait ...

 

[Renae]

The "major tourist areas" mentioned in the story is the far southern end, near Brisbane. Tourists go there because it's accessible. But the southern end of the GBR isn't the part that's in trouble, it's the northern part, which is much less accessible to tourists.

Meanwhile, it's so completely predictable that the spox for the tourism industry claims there are no problems, everybody come. Only a dupe would fall for such blatant PR. Oh wait ...

The irony of your post, and threegoofs liking it might just break this thread.

 

[Aberration]

The "major tourist areas" mentioned in the story is the far southern end, near Brisbane. Tourists go there because it's accessible. But the southern end of the GBR isn't the part that's in trouble, it's the northern part, which is much less accessible to tourists.

Meanwhile, it's so completely predictable that the spox for the tourism industry claims there are no problems, everybody come. Only a dupe would fall for such blatant PR. Oh wait ...

Only a dupe would not argue the point but attempt to slander the source.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tim the plumber]

Only a dupe would not argue the point but attempt to slander the source.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You may have noticed that the standard attack from the alarmist crowd is to attack the messanger rather than the science.

 

[Buzz]

You may have noticed that the standard attack from the alarmist crowd is to attack the messanger rather than the science.

Attacking the messenger is the standard attack? Really?? Is that what you tell yourself when you or your side loses an argument?

 

[Aberration]

You may have noticed that the standard attack from the alarmist crowd is to attack the messanger rather than the science.

No it's the standard attack from everyone it seems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

Attacking the messenger is the standard attack? Really?? Is that what you tell yourself when you or your side loses an argument?

When you attack the messenger do you tell yourself you have won the argument already?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Buzz]

No, of course not. Do you think we should never consider the bias of a source when debating something?

 

[Threegoofs]

You may have noticed that the standard attack from the alarmist crowd is to attack the messanger rather than the science.

LOL.

Maybe if people didn't use Australian Tour Operators as a source to dismiss the science, the attacks wouldnt seem so 'standard' to you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

LOL.

Maybe if people didn't use Australian Tour Operators as a source to dismiss the science, the attacks wouldnt seem so 'standard' to you.

Are you saying that the corral reefs that the tour operators are talking about have not returned to something like normal? Are you saying that only peer reviewed papers which you approve of count as evidence?

 

[Threegoofs]

Are you saying that the corral reefs that the tour operators are talking about have not returned to something like normal? Are you saying that only peer reviewed papers which you approve of count as evidence?

I'm saying tour operators have as much scientific credibility as people who call coral reefs 'corral reefs'!

 

[Lord of Planar]

No Cookies | The Courier Mail



Interesting.

The AGW crowd has Chicken Little Syndrome.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. Interesting that the guys who run tours are insisting they know more than the scientists studying it, and news stories are running telling people 'everything is OK, come on down!'.

Your source is so objective!

The other amusing thing is that Australia is pouring $2 billion into protecting the reef from AGW in the article, while I see you and others in other threads claiming that AGW won't cost a thing, and that the financial impact is overblown...

LOL...

Guess what Jester. I have read the science. This is a normal cycle.

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL...

Guess what Jester. I have read the science. This is a normal cycle.

Sure you have.

You subscribe to 'a journal'.

:roll:

 

[KLATTU]

Interesting dilemma. Who to believe? The warmist scientists who have a vested interest in defending the narrative or the tour operators who have a vested interest in making a buck?

 

[Threegoofs]

Interesting dilemma. Who to believe? The warmist scientists who have a vested interest in defending the narrative or the tour operators who have a vested interest in making a buck?

Yeah.

Tough choice.

Which group do you believe knows the science more?

I wonder who?

 

[KLATTU]

Well, I think we all know who you're going to go with ( part of the problem-doesn't see himself)

 

[Jack Hays]

It seems the "Consensus Enforcers" are active on this topic.


A new definition of academic misconduct

Posted on June 13, 2016 | 128 comments
by Judith Curry
Ridd was punished by James Cook University for “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues.” The university even warned that if he does this again, he’ll be tried for serious misconduct.
Continue reading →

Ridd was punished by James Cook University for “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues.” The university even warned that if he does this again, he’ll be tried for serious misconduct.

The latest perversion in research ethics comes to us from James Cook University in Australia. The Australian has the scoop, but it is behind paywall. Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller has an article on this University Censures Science Prof For Fact-Checking Global Warming Claim. Excerpts:
An Australian university recently censured marine scientist Paul Ridd for “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution,” because he questioned popular claims among environmentalists about coral reefs and global warming.
What was Ridd’s crime? He found out two of the world’s leading organizations studying coral reefs were using misleading photographs to make the case that global warming was causing a mass reef die-off. Ridd wasn’t rewarded for checking the facts and blowing the whistle on misleading science. Instead, James Cook University censured Ridd and threatened to fire him for questioning global warming orthodoxy.
Ridd’s not alone in criticizing some institutions and environmental groups for over-hyping the impacts global warming will have on coral reefs.
In fact, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s own chairman had to come out and dispel notions the reef was almost completely gone. . . .

 

[Lord of Planar]

Interesting dilemma. Who to believe? The warmist scientists who have a vested interest in defending the narrative or the tour operators who have a vested interest in making a buck?

I'll bet the tour operators have seen the annual bleaching and return to full color year after year.