- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
[FONT="]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="].[/FONT][FONT="]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="]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="]“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]
Yup. Interesting indeed.:mrgreen:
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...
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 ...
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
You may have noticed that the standard attack from the alarmist crowd is to attack the messanger rather than the science.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?