Only 3% of Australians know the true state of the Reef!
Ten years ago, coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef hit record lows. The news has been full of dire reports of bleaching ever since, but quietly, a phenomenal recovery was blossoming across the full 2,000 kilometer span of the reef. Last year coral cover hit a record high — better than any year since records began in 1986. Corals are thriving but Australians are spending half a billion dollars to save them?
I’m a Director of the Australian Environment Foundation, and after this new record, I worked with fellow Director Peter Ridd to arrange surveys to find out whether Australians had heard the news. What we found was a nation mis-informed.
I am honored to issue the report below. Please forward it on, send letters to the Editors and tell the world. Consider joining the AEF to help us get more science into environmental debates.
— Jo
_________________________________________
Great Barrier Reef in record coral cover but 97% of Australians don’t know it
Australian Environment Foundation (AEF)
23 April 2023
Left in the dark, Australians are wasting money on the wrong environmental issues
“Almost nobody realises that the reef has near record high coral cover according to the last survey carried out by the Australian Institute of Marine science” (AIMS) said Tom Bostock, the Australian Environment Foundation’s (AEF) president.
In the last 36 years the Great Barrier Reef has never had more coral. AIMS have been conducting detailed underwater surveys since 1986, and the most recent study showed the reef is in excellent health. Despite that, when 1,004 Australians were surveyed last year by the Australian Environment Foundation, remarkably, less than 3% of them knew the coral cover was “at a record high”. All up, only 10% of Australians realized that coral cover is even above average, leaving 80% of the country falsely thinking the situation was average or worse, and another ten percent having no idea at all.
Click to enlarge
So ten years after coral cover hit a record low, half the country still doesn’t realize the reef has recovered. It’s almost as if Australians have been subject to years of misinformation. The poor score reflects badly on the media coverage that reports on every local bleaching event, but rarely on the rapid recovery.
There has been two years of great news on the reef. In 2021 AIMS recorded the equal highest ever coral cover and amazingly, in 2022, it broke all previous records. While both these events received a perfunctory story, they are rarely mentioned after that to add perspective on the prophesies of doom. The phenomenal health of the Great Barrier Reef is virtually unknown to Australians, yet they are paying over half a billion dollars in taxes to “save” it, and are misled into thinking that expensive low carbon policies and Net Zero targets will help protect the reef when there is no correlation between CO2 levels and coral cover.
Half of all man-made emissions of CO2 ever emitted have been produced since these coral surveys were started, yet there is no measurable effect on coral cover.
The record coral cover is all the more remarkable given that there have been three mass coral bleaching crises in the last five years. It shows corals have a dynamic vitality to cope with stresses that must have occurred thousands of times . This leaves voters unable to judge where environmental funds should be directed and leaves many people feeling needlessly anxious.
If the Great Barrier Reef had been at an all-time record low, as it was in 2012, we know the university and media outlets would ensure most people were aware of it. We would consider them failing in their duty if they did not. But now, when the corals are healthy, the silence is deafening, and ultimately that’s bad for the environment.
There are only so many funds available, and if Australians have little idea how quickly the Great Barrier Reef recovers, we miss the most urgent issues while trying to save things that are largely managing themselves.
Click to enlarge. Figure 4: Coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef as measured by the AIMS Long Term Monitoring Program. Supposedly “devastating” bleaching events were recorded in 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022, (red dots). The GBR has record high coral cover in 2022, and at least twice as much coral as in 2011/2012. Coral is a slow growing organism, so this graph is proof that institutions claiming major coral loss due to bleaching grossly exaggerated. Uncertainty margin is approximately ±0.04
Who is to blame if Australians are misinformed?
Australian taxpayers pay institutions to give them accurate information. It’s supposedly the reason the ABC and SBS exist. This also reflects badly on agencies like AIMS, GBRMPA, the CSIRO, the BOM and the universities with specialist teams of marine biologists (like James Cook Uni). They are all letting the nation down.
Four years ago the CSIRO and BoM’s “State of the Climate” report told us 30 per cent of all coral cover across the entire Great Barrier Reef was lost. This year, they told us “more frequent and severe coral bleaching events are likely” but did not even mention the excellent health of the reef. How is that reasonable?
Where are the professors? If the media misinform Australians it’s the expert’s job to pick up the phone and correct the record. Is the real problem that unfounded fears serve those who apply for taxpayer grants, and who have no incentive to lower the sense of panic on the reef?
Where is the media? Journalists are supposed to grill professors to make sure they are providing value for taxpayers, not sensationalist self-serving hyperbole.
The voters who were the most concerned were also the worst informed
An astonishing 44% of Green voters thought the coral cover was at a record low — the most incorrect answer possible. All up, more than 75% of Greens thought the reef was doing worse than usual. They were the most misinformed.
58% of Labor voters and 50% of Independents also thought the Great Barrier Reef corals were below average or at an all time record low. Whereas 39% of Liberal voters were also largely wrong, which was better, but still only 15% thought the reef was above average or at a record high.
The voters with the most accurate idea were the One Nation voters with a quarter largely correctly aware the reef was at least above average or at a record high.
Greens and Labor voters were the most ill informed and pessimistic. Click to enlarge.
The survey showed that ignorance about these reassuring results was spread across Australia with similar patterns in every state and every income group. Men were slightly better informed than women (13% of men realized that coral cover is higher than average, whereas only 8% of women did).
These results were also largely confirmed in an earlier similar survey of 1,007 people in February 2022. In that survey only 7% of voters correctly said the coral cover on the Barrier Reef was “well above average”.
_________________________________________
Compass Polling surveyed 1,004 Australians online on September 13-14, 2022 six weeks after the news of the “record high”.
Question: Compared to the last thirty years, what do you think the state of the coral coverage on the Great Barrier Reef is today? Answers: Record High, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Record Low, Don’t know.
A data table is available in the Appendix online.
Join the The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF)
The Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) is a charity dedicated to protecting the environment, while preserving the rule of law, property rights, and the freedom of the individual.
Photo of Flynn reef by Wise Hok Wai Lum
Don’t you know, the miniscule drop in the rate of the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is improving the coral situation.
230
Australia is busy actively destroying its economy and shutting down power production on the basis of an easily disproved lie.
650
That’s how it is.
100
You’d think the $444.3 million of hard-earned taxpayer money the Turnbull regime unexpectedly gave the then-tiny Great Barrier Reef Foundation would have led them to be better informed and do research to establish the reef is not under threat, but if you look at their website you just get doom and gloom.
Plus I could see no acknowledgement to the Australian taxpayer for their extremely generous gift, nor any details about how they spent the money.
They plan 43 interventions to the reef which seem to be wholly unnecessary and even dangerous as they plan to generically alter coral to make it more “resilient”.
360
Genetically alter, not generically, an unauthorised change by spelling checker.
140
In Toronto last week $22Million was taken in a gold bullion robbery at the airport.
But the Turnbull gift was our $443 million, 7.5 tons of gold given on a lie without even an application or explanation? I know they later calculated ‘administrative’ costs for the six people at $135 Million. That’s $22.5million each. Really?
When did the people of Australia agree to that?
And now in hindsight to ‘research’ something which is not true. We want the money back.
They and their ‘committee’ including the Prime Minister’s wife should give it back. Or be prosecuted. Robbery is robbery. You do not keep the money.
650
And what of the millionaire operators of the dying Reef scam at JCU who punished Professor Peter Ridd for calling out their fraud? Did they get away with it too? Why aren’t the media calling for their resignations? And to hand Peter his superannuation and legal costs back with an apology?
Theft and fraud is fine, if you run a university or a government.
530
The alleged plan looks generated by a random phrase generator. Cute and meaningless science babble.
120
So you actually mean AI. Big troubles ahead with the new “ lie machine “
80
Just consider that one point alone!
WTF?
Are they going to build umbrellas or other shade structures over the coral and…. cooling …..WTF2?…. are they going to put giant refrigerators on the reef to cool the water ….?
I’m afraid they may be just be that stupid.
Remember their proposal from a few years ago to do “cloud brightening” over the reef? I am absolutely not joking. And Jo reported it at the time (but I can’t find the link). And here is a video from Their ABC. https://youtu.be/o8JkN7XbdZk
190
The Great Barrier reef is around 2300 km long. Vertically. The change in water temperature in that distance is measured in degrees.
And it is up to 250km wide, in area as big as Germany. It likely has lakes and rivers and deserts with big tide changes while the polyps take risks too close to the surface. So you expect occasional bleaching in the tropical sun at low tide. So what?
But former US President Barack Obama castigated Australia for not looking after it? As did UNESCO. How do you look after something as incredibly big as that? What does that even mean? Is America looking after the entire Carribbean? Who is minding the Rocky Mountains?
And their solution? More Carbon taxes. Of course. More money for the UN and the bankers. Again without any evidence or any expectation that it would change anything.
340
I too would be interested to see where the money has gone. I wonder how the property (coastal naturally) portfolios of the recipients of Turnbull’s (see the taxpayer) largesse have changed since the gift. I suspect that much like the Reef, there has been spectacular growth.
110
Yikes, this reminds me of the Cane beetle, which was regarded as a major pest of Sugar cane in Queensland during the late 1920’s/early 1930’s. Left uncontrolled, it was predicted this pest would limit future production of a very valuable agricultural industry. Then someone had the bright idea of releasing cane toads to control them in a form of biological control…………….
80
Same with Closing The Gap. If the gap were closed there would be lots of unemployed drones. If the reef is in good shape then all those parasites that inhabit James Cook and the various reef agencies would have to get real jobs and they have shown that cannot be trusted with facts usually a prime requisite for employment.
101
Very happy to be in the 3% but how to change the other 97%? Keep plugging away I guess.
240
As David has so succinctly detailed above, we are being had.
The diversionary “funding” of the Great Big Barrier Reef Foundation was an extraordinary event in Australian Public Life.
When most of us were kids the Saturday afternoon movies would show pirates, with an eye patch, digging holes in the sand to bury the box of gold coin.
Now the holes are in coral and they don’t even bother to wear the eye patch so the glint in their eye is hidden.
How do we get our nation back from these scrounging insects.
360
If you do a YouTube (owned by Goolag) search for “Barrier Reef” (without quotes) the first returns you get do not relate to supposed imminent doom of the Reef.
If however you do a search for “Barrier Reef bleaching” (without quotes) you get a whole bunch of reef catastrophe stories.
Predictably, the first results come from Leftist media.
The first fact-based story in the search results is the eighth one which is by by Sky News Australia (https://youtu.be/u0TXlB6inYA) and the next story based on fact doesn’t occur until the 25th search return by Redacted (https://youtu.be/-cE-is-5TPo).
191
Hi Jo, thank you for your amazing article; again! You have kept your readers up to date on the state of our magnificent reef. Peter Ridd is also to be congratulated on his work. So weary and angry with the constant lies and fakery around the reporting re the reef and everything else environmentally in Australia. No wonder Australians are looking dumber and dumber with the constant flow of communistic propaganda, starting with schooling and then the MSM. One point, how on earth was no one accountable for the $400+ million and how that was used?
330
You fail to mention diversity Jo. The recolonisation species are mostly Acropora, which are not resilient against cyclones or Crown of Thorns starfish. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has a much more balanced view. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/
The Australian Environment Foundation is ironically named, given the Directors’ true lack of concern for the environment. Your web site needs a bit of work too, many links point to https://aefweb.info which is an online gambling website.
246
Woods Hole has been on the alarmist far fringe for a long time. They will always bend reality to suit the religion.
Some people fall for this.
Yes, some species grow quicker than others and hence lead the recovery.
AEF have far more concern about the environment that academics from ARC CoE led by activist Terry Hughes at JCU, who has been just plain wrong about basically everything about the reef. (members of his group even found to be copy pasting fish pictures in academic papers).
Terry Hughes methodology of taking photos from a moving plane is about as close to a survey as he managed, despite all the funding.
Oh, and not one link on the AEF web site goes to the gambling site that that seems to have infected your computer.
311
Nah b.nice, it,s all about diversity says Simon, who most likely wouldn’t know what is going on in the real world. Diversity matters more than the GBR to people like Simon.
140
You fail to mention diversity Jo.
I’ve already mentioned diversity Simon. If only you read my site instead of just commenting on the headlines, eh?
See this article from Feb where Peter Ridd explains that’s it’s no biggie at all when fast growing corals grow back faster, because they were the ones killed fastest in the bleaching…
PS: Where are these links to the gambling site. I’m not seeing them.
110
Thanks to help from Gee Aye, it appears the old link in the Blogroll was wrong. That’s now fixed.
50
I don’t think so….
[Simon, I really appreciate your proof-reading. Thank you! The old AEF link is probably just the previous site. I’ve sent a message to the webmaster. But can you get back to the topic of the GBR, or would you rather we didn’t discuss that? – Jo]
33
Simon, back in the days of real science, biologists used to know that in any colonisation or recolonisation event, that there is a certain order that species settle.
You don’t simply get settlement of the exact same species mix as was there before, that develops over time.
The process is called ecological succession.
If there was no life at all you first have a pioneer species that settles and then other species follow. That’s call primary succession.
If there were some existing life forms, you have secondary succession.
Over time, the original species mix will be established if the original conditions exist.
(And all that’s assuming what you quoted is actually true, I don’t automatically believe any statement by “fact checkers” (sic), warmists or taxpayer-funded “scientists”.)
I find it extraordinary that this very basic concept of biology and ecology appears not to be understood or even known about by “experts”.
441
If you had read the link Simon provided you would have noted that only ⅔ of the reef had high coral cover, but what’s 115,000 sq km when you are going for click bait.
As to your species succession point, well done, but again, if you had read the link you would have noted that they covered that as well.
In short, not all the reef has good coral cover, and a lot of that cover is of low diversity, which is at risk from the next bleaching event or crown of thorns starfish.
Good on you for noting the role pioneer species plan in habitat recovery though
231
So, all totally natural
Just LOTS of coral, more than recorded in a long time.
Must be CO2/climate change. ! 😉
230
Peter, “only 2/3rds” has high coral cover — and in your crystal ball, you know that in olden-perfect climate times the corals were 100% of everywhere…
Then there is this point (you didn’t read the post either?)
“Half of all man-made emissions of CO2 ever emitted have been produced since these coral surveys were started, yet there is no measurable effect on coral cover. “
180
hunh! – I was pointing out that if you accept the results of the survey, most respondents understood that the reef was not as the post asserts, and that fully one third was *not* well covered.
as to your crystal ball comment, please point out what the historic record was, and let’s go back to the formation of the reef around 20,000 years ago. decadal records will do.
As to your bold comment, do you have a link, or is this another attempt to obfuscate?
08
Peter, do you have any evidence that that “, most respondents understood that the reef was not as the post asserts, and that fully one third was *not* well covered. ” or are you just making stuff up again?
My Crystal ball comment was a satirical dig at your assumption that the reef was ever supposed to be 100% covered. Apologies for using satire. They say it’s wasted on children under ten.
As for the bold link, are you admitting you’ve never looked up cumulative human emissions on any of the official sites? CO2 will kill us all but you can’t be bothered even looking at basic uncontroversial data? Obfuscation is all your own…
And if you are paid to write this stuff, shouldn’t you do your homework?
120
Highest extent in 36 years..
That’s what CO2 does for life on Earth. ! 🙂
40
PF, The question was..
“Compared to the last thirty years, what do you think the state of the coral cover on the GBR is today”
The selection was… record high, above average, average, below average, record low, don’t know. (covers the full gamut)
Which is the correct answer?
Which answer would you have chosen?
20
“yet there is no measurable effect on coral cover. “
Except that it is at its maximum over that time period. 😉
60
Reality is, that the GBR was never “at risk”… except from over-hyping from activists.
Yes, some near-surface coral (as seen from an aeroplane) got exposed by the low water levels and lack of nutrients due to outflows.
Yes, parts of it occasionally get damaged by cyclones etc…
But the majority of the reef was not affected.
And like any forest, the re-growth starts with fast-growing species which can sometimes be a bit more fragile than the slower growing species.
That is the circle of natural growth and existence…
And it wouldn’t happen without CO2.
240
‘ … next bleaching event …’
That would require a strong El Nino and a momentary West Pacific sea level fall, I reckon that is a few years away.
40
“That would require a strong El Nino and a momentary West Pacific sea level fall, I reckon that is a few years away.”
Sea level fall?? When we’re all about to drown in a 7M sea level rise by last year because all the ice in the Arctic is melting? Someone is going to be wrong..
70
According to NOAA.
‘Long periods of exceptionally low tides leave shallow water coral heads exposed, damaging reefs. The amount of damage depends on the time of day and the weather conditions. Corals exposed during daylight hours are subjected to the most ultraviolet radiation, which can overheat and dry out the coral’s tissues.’
20
On the other hand …
‘Here we present an analysis of recent summer La Niña events focused on their synoptic meteorology and corresponding water temperatures over the Great Barrier Reef. Results show that the 2021–2022 summer La Niña caused accumulated coral heat stress to exceed previous La Niña conditions by 2.5 times.
‘We find that weather patterns that favoured the build-up of heat in water overlying the Great Barrier Reef during the 2021–2022 summer were likely the result of repositioning of planetary scale atmospheric longwaves. ‘ (McGowan et al 2023)
10
Excess warmth in the water.. and the coral now at max extent.
hmm.. I wonder what that tells us. 😉
60
“hmm.. I wonder what that tells us. ”
It tells you that you have to buy coral! Pony up half a billion dollars and you will get a new coral record. Do you want to see what a billion dollars can buy?
50
A long wave is also called a Rossby Wave, its only weather.
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/upper-air-charts/longwaves-and-shortwaves
40
We have a wonderful example of what you are talking about, David, in the island of Surstey which emerged from the sea in the 1960s just south of Iceland.
Have a look on Google Earth to see the greening that is taking place on this otherwise barren island of volcanic rock and ash.
110
Thanks Michael.
There is a good video about Surtsey here:
https://youtu.be/a0ZnlfDkErM
I wonder how many people who identify as “ecologists” or “biologists” today are actually familiar with concepts of ecological succession? (Serious question since Simon quoted supposed “expert” “fact checkers” (sic)).
100
It seems that The Greens can’t recognise greenery.
https://www.birdseyeviewphotography.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/A14I9140.jpg
90
Most importantly, the Australian people are ignorant about the GBR returning to pristine condition and the ABC is to blame. Why don’t they mention it?
They are quite happy to beat around the bush, but aunty will stay quiet until El Nino turns up then claim bleaching is caused by global warming.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-22/remember-that-record-funding-for-the-great-barrier-reef/102252268
140
As DM says, the diversity already exists, in the soup of the Coral Sea that flows in different directions and at different levels, too complex to easily define. Simon does not need to fork out for a reef boat or pay for a trip on one. A simplified pattern exists on any natural Queensland beach, eg one without high-rise and huge amounts spent on sand replenishment etc. First you get ipomoea pes-caprae. It is the primary coloniser of the dune systems, accompanied by spinifex, and followed by casuarina. Then there are the mangroves that move with the coastal topography. I am 200m from the beach but I still know when the next lot of soup has arrived. The genetic alterers will probably do nothing but claim this is their work.
100
Simon and Fitz, some here believe the sky is not falling.
Thus making them conspiracy theorists.
Thank you for your efforts in helping them return to rationality.
Any rational person understands that we only have 5 years left.
110
5 years left, 20 years ago.
110
Simon, Jo is not discussing the technical details of the intricate changing biodiversity of the GBR. A natural complex system, like the rest of planet earth, in constant flux. What the article discusses is the lack of recognition of “good” news about the reef by the general public. The general public have been un/mis informed about the GBR mostly due to a cacophony of alarmist negative news.
160
Woods Hole asks “why aren’t [climate activist] scientists celebrating.”
Well, the GBR being at maximum coverage, really doesn’t help their CO2 GBR alarmist rhetoric, does it. ! 😉
They would almost certainly be celebrating if the GBR was at very low levels.
70
Try clicking on the Tom Bostock, Chairman of Board and Dr. Peter Ridd, Director & Scientific Adviser links on the Our People page.
Are you a front for online gambling, have you been hacked, or is your web developer just a bit mixed up about the purpose of your organisation?
[Thanks again, I’ve forwarded this to the Webmanager to fix the outdated links. But can you please get back on topic? – Jo]
03
A remnant address, Wayback shows that to be the case.
http://aefweb.info/data/2010%20AEF%20Conference%20programme.pdf
I take you agree with everything else on their site, and can find no other flaws.
10
Indeed, I’ve had confirmation from the AEF, it’s just their former site, taken over by a domain parking thing just like so many other dormant urls. The links will be fixed asap. Thanks.
So Simon, do you want to deal with coral reefs, or they don’t matter as much to you as ad hom allusions…
20
Why anyone is stupid enough to believe that 420 molecules of CO2 in every million molecules of ordinary air is toxic to coral reefs is beyond me – almost as stupid as not knowing what a woman is or believing that grotesque “trans” pedophile with the huge artificial breasts is fit to be anywhere near children let alone be in a classroom with them!
Look at the people who believe the left wing agenda and wonder what in their lives caused such mental trauma.
330
Why are there such efforts to destroy the Crown-of-Thorns starfish?
It is a native inhabitant. And why wouldn’t it be? Its larvae float around the ocean and it’s found all over the Indo-Pacific region from Africa to South America. Why would it NOT colonise the GBR over the eons of time?
Like it or not, it is part of the natural order of things and should be left alone.
Trying to control the Crown-of-Thorns is as absurd as trying to control carbon dioxide.
220
At one time, enthusiasts were catching CoT starfish, chopping them up, then throwing them overboard. Like any starfish, each piece regenerates into a new starfish. Duh.
100
It is essential to the health of reefs across the Pacific. And the natives of French Polynesua celebrate it in images and song. Only ignorant Australians assume it is evil. Then lions are evil
And sharks. And fungi. And termites. It is the anti evil ignorant who our culpably evil. And ridiculously righteous in their ignorance and presumption.
80
It’s why Greens are against imprisoning water in dams dooming us to endure droughts and flooding rains. The people who say meat is murder and milk is prostitution. The morally superior who pretend lions live on grubs and deny the cycle of life. Even in the reefs.
160
It is a common experience that I note – that is, how obtuse and generally uninformed the political Left are. Putatively well educated and affluent but totally clueless and unfortunately, indoctrinated. A sad reflection on our education system.
130
Its precisely because they are reasonably well educated, with respect to other disciplines, that their minds have been turned off. Their ignorance is profound.
60
They are not well educated, but mal-educated.
Any proper education, in any field, confers upon its recipients an ability to think independently.
Ever since the Left took over the education system in the 1960’s, that rarely happens (I was fortunate to get mostly non-woke teachers and professors but even that would be almost impossible today).
People today are indoctrinated, not educated.
101
Nevertheless, the Crown-of-thorns Starfish Strategic Management Framework is in place to minimise the impact of future outbreaks.
20
And in the UK (where there are some -cold water type-corals) the The Monster Raving Loony Party has a more sensible policy to reduce the carbon footprint: they propose to ban the sale of shoes made out of coal.
As distinct from those waterproof footwear based on oil or gas.
60
Why? And why is a perfectly natural phenomenon which is very good for the health of the reef considered an outbreak. You should see what gardeners do to roses.
20
And the “Safeguard Mechanism” which legislates the steady destruction of all of Australia’s manufacturing, transport, agriculture, mining at 5% per year. Unless of course they buy foreign ‘carbon credits’ in which case it is a 5,10,15,20,25,30.. % tax on everything we do. You cannot run a train or grow food or smelt metals or manufacture fertilizer or transport people or goods without generating CO2. Even the TT line Tasmanian ferry has to use 5% less diesel per year. And every train in Australia, especially the ones which carry food and ore to ships and markets.
So they are planning the destruction of the Crown of Thorns Starfish as well. Why not get rid of every predator? We don’t need them. Termites too can go. And mould, fungus, bacteria. All banned to ‘safeguard’ humans. And because they are not green coloured or cute.
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
Get rid of the lot. Especially the Crown of Thorns Starfish.
50
“Nevertheless, the Crown-of-thorns Starfish Strategic Management Framework is in place to minimise the impact of future outbreaks.”
Hey- Don’t knock it, some people got paid a lot of money to develop that! Even if it never gets used they get to keep the cash..
40
One of the CoT’s natural preditors was the Triton shell – most of which were removed as it is a decorative item. Remove the preditor and, hey presto, out-of-control CoT population….
60
They are a protected species in Australia so presumably their numbers are close to natural.
In any case there is a captive breeding program to increase their numbers, although it’s not clear what their numbers should be.
20
It’s a reasonable view but it doesn’t work that way. Reduce the predators and the ones left explode in numbers with an excess of food and no competition.
These balances in life are quickly restored, like CO2 itself. There is a natural level and if you change it , the natural level is restored even faster.
The half life is related to the lifespan of the animal. Mosquitoes or flies for example can expand in vast numbers in an incredibly short time.
Also the prey, in this case the Crown of Thorns starfish only lives 3-4 years. They appear to boom and bust very quickly. So why interfere?
40
Journalists are trained and paid not to be accurate but to entertain.
Bad news is always the bigger news story that gets the headline.
“As we grapple with grim headlines about the pandemic, political upheaval, racial injustice and climate change, we could all use a little good news.”
“One more sad story’s one more than I can stand;
Just once how I’d like to see the headline say; ‘Not much to print today, can’t find nothin’ bad to say’ […]
We sure could use a little good news today.”
110
They compensate with pictures of cavoodle puppies. And rescue animal stories. Cuteness and feel good stories. Actual good news is ignored as it doesn’t sell.
80
“Bad news is always the bigger news story that gets the headline.”
Not quite Robber. Bad news about the vaccine disappeared without a trace. Bad news about eagles and whales and wind farms never gets a mention.
The big problem with the media is not that it is a shallow sensationalist industry (which it is), it’s that it is also a political player, not an observer.
140
On the other hand, the press story about bat winged people living on the moon, after a 6 day run in one of the “Penny Dreadfuls”, hasn’t been recycled, not even by Simon.
10
Hey Jo,
Kim Iverson, is, like you, a journalist person, trying to do actual truth seeking.
She resigned from The Hill when she was unceremoniously nixed from interviewing the Great Dr. Science.
This interview, a month or more old, may be the best construct of what happened to us.
It is not pleasant.
Perhaps too unpleasant to ever be absorbed into public consciousness.
Spoiler alert, it came from the Uni of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
And, we here in the US may be the baddies.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/u7Q7TazyewXq/
20
To those that may not know, central North Carolina contains an area called The Research Triangle.
It was where the Government/Pharma/Intelligence industrial complex consummate relationships.
Sort of like an institutional continuous Spring Break Davos without Bono.
20
The same kind of ignorance exists regarding ICE cars. It’s not 1975 anymore. Today’s ICE emit only trace amounts of real pollutants, yet many people think of them as dirty, and EVs as clean.
190
In most places battery operated vehicles* are powered by coal. I would estimate that burning petroleum (e.g. gasoline, diesel or propane) in ICE vehicles is much more efficient and lower CO2 emissions (not that it matters) than burning coal at a power station and then suffering grid transmission losses and charging and discharging losses with the battery vehicle.
* Since some people pedantically say they are not EVs, true EVs are electric trains etc. that are permanently connected to the grid.)
110
It is because the invisible gas CO2 has been classified as industrial pollution. Combustion produces two gases, CO2 and H2O so H2O should be classified as dirty and industrial pollution. After all, it is far more dangerous and is directly responsible for far more deaths.
I would add that the claimed 5 million deaths a year from ‘fossil fuels’ is in fact from particulate matter, generally from dung and wood burned indoors in extreme energy poverty precisely because the poorest people lacked a clean fossil fuel power supply, the dominant clean energy source in most advanced countries.
There are no reports of anyone dying from CO2, although it is possible. But the fabrication that fossil fuels kill is what is actually killing people, denying cheap power to poor people. Unless you believe wind and solar are cheaper than coal, gas or oil. Which no one believes today. As for ‘free’, coal is free.
Only in Australia do we refuse to use what is our second biggest export. Because we are ethical. It’s a strange sort of ethics.
110
It’s very annoying to admit that most Aussies are ignorant and most do not understand the thriving of the GBR at all.
But try and inform most people about the flourishing of Humans since the Industrial REV and you’ll get all sorts of stupid reactions.
AGAIN most Labor and Greens voters don’t want the data or evidence, but just love their BS and FRAUD. And some young loonies get very hostile if you try and correct their delusional approach..
Even the Australian, Sky News and the Herald Sun etc have hardly made a dent in most Aussies’ understanding of the real world and most people still cling to their BS FANTASY world for their lies and misinformation.
150
Jo, the usual methods AIMS uses to report “survey” results from the GBR are quite confusing, or perhaps intentionally misleading. They only present results as percentages of the reef affected by various factors, and then, only with respect to the number of reefs they choose to survey.
And, of course, they divide the reef into three zones. Hardly surprising that the reefs in the central zone, closest to Townsville and Cairns, always seems to get more attention, particularly compared to the southern zone. But this presentation of AIMS survey results never shows aggregated results like your chart.
Can you tell me where you found the data to construct that chart?
20
Pauly, it’s Peter Ridds chart — and because AIMS publish all three (north, south and central) sections of the results separately, it was he who gathered the three groups data into a single “whole reef” dataset. I can ask him for more detail if you want?
50
The latest Prager Uni video features Alec Epstein who proves again that we need fossil fuels to thrive and relying on TOXIC, UNRELIABLE W & S would be a disaster.
Watch the short video or read the transcript at the link.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/23/fossil-fuels-the-big-picture/
30
Remember too how with-holding a good news report about the GBR until after the May 2022 Fed Election helped GreenLabor win.
Count the ways lies of the left helped Albo’s Labor win the election
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6947
scroll to my last comment to see #8 on my updated list of “17 ways lies of the left helped Albo’s Labor win the election”
Quote[8 – China used some UN committee to whine about coral loss on the GBR and our Env Minister Ley rushed to the other hemisphere to “put Australia’s case” – We should have just told China/UN to fo. Now after Fed Election we have the new AIMS report showing “REEF OK” concealed till post election. Clearly another example of how the election was gamed.Parts of Great Barrier Reef See Most Extensive Coral Cover In 36 Years 5Aug22]
30
If the opposite were true, this is what the reef alarmists would do. For starters think up an alarmist hashtag to work on social media. Something like #deathofreef or equivalent. Then recruit an army of social media contributors who would all tweet some damaging comments simultaneously. This gets the subject trending on socials and then the MSM gets alerted, because well, they are lazy. Anyone who dares comment with contrasting views on the death of the reef on Twitter etc are instantly trolled by that same army of initial contributors. All those trolls have been furnished with a list of alternate debating points. A spokesperson for some Green blob body is prepped in a strategy session by their advisors/underlings to be conversant with all facets of the debate. There is a press conference. That spokesperson must use certain buzz words over and over during the press conference to enable those little sound bites for radio/TV. That interview / presser goes for over an hour and the MSM marvel at the knowledge of the spokesperson. All social media and MSM highlight the main points of that press conference and it gets not only widely reported but repeated many times on the ABC. It is then picked up by Apple news and every iPhone user then gets their daily update and learns of the death of the reef. Equivalent for all the Android phone users. During an interview with the Minister of Environment numerous questions are directed to that minister regarding the death of the reef. You get the gist. Yours faithfully – Daniel Andrews.
20
Anyone getting their information from ChatGPT would be informed the reef is in dire straits.
It took me quite a while to get an apology for the misinformation but no go on climate change being beneficial;
Me
You state “For example, while coral cover has increased in some areas, other parts of the reef may still be experiencing decline or loss.” But all the present evidence indicated the coral cover has never been better so clearly climate change is good for the barrier reef.
ChatGPT
At least it may now know the coral cover is at record level.
60
“At least it may now know the coral cover is at record level.”
NO!
You forced it to concede.
But the next person that asks, will still almost certainly get the original BS answer.
50
Unless the data was available before September 2021, it will not update. So you are right that ChatGPT will continue to provide incorrect information.
You can point it at old data and it will then be aware but nothing after Sept 2021. Not very intelligent.
50
A deliberate inability to learn.
Like most leftism.
30
Shows the power of an industrial strength gaslighting strategy.
Good news ignored or obfuscated or cherry picked; whatever it takes to support the narrative. If that doesnt work outright lies and data theft/frawd if that’s what it takes.
GBR extent/health
Cyclone/Hurricane frequency
Actual trends in damage and deaths from extreme weather
Reporting record heat , but not record cold
Reporting on heat death, but not cold deaths
Arctic ice extent
Manipulation of the temperature record and erasing the historical record
Reporting accelerated sea level change as if its real
Pretending we have any significant control over CO2 levels , even if they mattered.
Pretending that 100% “renewable power” is possible in a first word economy
Pretending the “transition to renewable energy” is real and happening by 2030-50
Day after day , just more gaslighting drivel to herd the populace towards an imaginary utopia. Its unsurprising that so few have any perceptions that are even close to reality.
90
Real pollution, not this weird green craziness;
https://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/weekend-unthreaded-258/#comment-2134895
The Greeeens made no noise about the horrific cyanide pollution of Newcastle Harbour and local environs.
They aren’t concerned about real pollution.
40
If there was no action surely it is not just the green who at fault, especially as it is not the greens who can legislate. Oh… and if the polluter broke rules, it becomes a policing matter.
15
Read what was said….. The Greens “made no noise”..
They only “make noise” on things that fit their political agenda. Environment is usually NOT one of them.
eg Same sex marriage as soon as TA won the election, transgender rights and indoctrination, destroying reliable electricity, CO2 NON-pollution….
Then they are howling and carrying-on like the crazy they are.
30
The cyanide was held in deeper layers of river mud from decades earlier.
It should never have been allowed to get there in the first place but post WW11 was a different mentality all around the world.
You couldn’t swim in any of the major rivers in Europe then.
Decades later, in the Hunter, a bunch of politicians who should have screened off that area just went ahead with removal to make way for the new coal loader.
Cyanide get washed into the harbour and people were even getting itchy from swimming at Stockton beach.
The Government and Greens just kept their mouths shut and did it.
Cheaper that way, and the grines could get a big donation for looking the other way.
Lots of dead fish and birds for a few months.
So much for the grines and the nswepa.
S c u m.
40
In all those ‘learned’ institutions mentioned, The Green intelligentsia who inhabit them are grant driven to play dumb.
40
Wait … I thought the oceans were boiling!
10
I do like the line at the bottom of the third chart….
“Greens and Labor voters were the most ill-informed and pessimistic.”
It applies to basically everything!
10
I know that much credit will be claimed by the left for the record high as soon as they cannot deny it.
And, they may well have a point. How much of this spending can be fairly claimed to have improved the reef outcomes?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-22/remember-that-record-funding-for-the-great-barrier-reef/102252268
10
[…] results come from a survey carried out by the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and is the work of coral authority Dr. […]
10
[…] results come from a survey carried out by the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and is the work of coral authority Dr. […]
10
Corals have more than 500 million years’ worth of “dynamic vitality” from which to cope with warmer waters and bleaching events. Why Greens even want to pretend they’re at risk of dying out entirely only speaks to their hubris and gaslighting.
00
[…] results come from a survey carried out by the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and is the work of coral authority Dr. […]
10
[…] results come from a survey carried out by the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and is the work of coral authority Dr. […]
00
[…] By Jo Nova […]
10
[…] results come from a survey carried out by the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and is the work of coral authority Dr. […]
10
[…] Jämfört med de senaste 30 åren, hur stor är korallernas täckning av Stora Barriär Revet idag ? […]
00
[…] Read the Full Article […]
00