Haven’t Lost Half of the Great Barrier Reef: Part 2, Junk Methodology

HOW could scientists conclude that half of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost in the last 27 years: target coral reefs most affected by cyclones, coral bleaching and crown-of-thorn starfish outbreaks, while ignoring more representative reefs with healthy corals. And I didn’t make that up! It’s documented in a peer-reviewed study by H. Sweatman, S. Delean and C. Syms entitled: ‘Assessing loss of coral cover on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef over two decades, with implications for longer-term trends’ [1].

Indeed the claim that there has been a 50 per cent decline in coral cover at the Great Barrier Reef appears to be largely an artifice of the survey method. In particular, coral reefs most severely affected by bleaching in 1998, and reefs disproportionally affected by crown-of-thorn starfish outbreaks, and also reefs with insufficient time to recover from cyclones in 2009 and 2011 were targeted for repeated sampling, while more representative reefs with healthy corals were ignored.

In part 1 of this series, I reported that the World Heritage Centre will demand action by the Australian Government to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ funds to address this manufactured issue, or have the Great Barrier Reef placed on its World Heritage in Danger List. This demand is a recommendation of the United Nation’s International Union for the Conservation of Nature, UNESCO, in its State of Conservation report prepared for the June meeting of the UNESCO committee [2], which in turn is based upon a report of the environmental lobby groups WWF and the Australian Marine Conservation Society, whose report [3] in turn relies on the claims of a peer reviewed study by Glenn De’ath and co-workers [4].Outer Barrier Reef, Photograph by Walter Starck

The paper by De’ath and co-workers published in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012 [5] does indeed claim a 50 per cent decline in coral cover based on 27 years of data from the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS) Long-Term Monitoring Program.

The scientists suggests 48 per cent of the decline can be attributable to cyclones, 42 per cent to crown-of-thorn predation and 10 per cent to coral bleaching. But remarkably, and at odds with the broad claims in De’ath et al. 2012, there has arguably been no increase in the incidence of cyclones over the same period [5], no evidence for deterioration in water quality at the Great Barrier Reef [6], and no general increase in the incidence of coral bleaching . So, it would seem remarkable that coral cover has declined so dramatically and purportedly from these sources.

De’ath draw their conclusions from modelling based on a study of just 214 reefs chosen from a total of approximately 3,000 reefs. So they sampled approximately 7 per cent of reefs. They do not explain in the paper how the 7 per cent of reefs were chosen, for example, they do not explain whether they randomly choose the reefs that would be studies as one draws numbers in a lottery, or whether particular reefs were selected. They also don’t explain if they continued to sample the same number of reefs over the 27-year period of the survey, or, for example, whether they reduced the number of reefs sampled over this 27-year period, and, for example, only went back to reefs that showed dramatic decline in coral cover.

Of course while scientists claim to be trustworthy, there is reason to be sceptical. As Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, explains in his book ‘Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science’ much of modern environmental science has been corrupted by noble causes. These same causes have brought tremendous prestige and wealth to many scientists.

Remarkably many problems with the AIMS long-term monitoring program, the exact same program relied upon by De’ath and co-workers to conclude half of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost, are detailed in a paper published just one year before by Hugh Sweatman and co-workers [1]. Sweatman and De’ath are colleagues at AIMS and incredibaly Sweatman is one of the authors of the 2012 De’ath paper.

In the 2011 paper Dr Sweatman writes with respect to sampling in the central section of the Great Barrier Reef:

“In the early years of the programme, up to 32 reefs spread across the Swains sector were surveyed annually, but only seven reefs in the south of the Swains sector were surveyed regularly 1993–2004. Five of these seven reefs had large and persistent outbreaks of A. planci for most of the survey period, a high incidence of outbreaks that was not representative of reefs across the sector”.

Sweatman et al. 2011 go on to explain that the overall decline, often reported in coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, is mainly used to due to large losses of coral in six of 29 subregions. This loss is attributed to coral bleaching in 1998 and outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. Otherwise, Sweatman explains that living coral cover increased in one subregion (3%) and 22 subregions (76%) showed no substantial change.

Furthermore, coral reefs in the great majority of subregions showed cycles of decline and recovery over the survey period, but with little synchrony among subregions and no long term decline.

Sweatman and co-workers conclude that much of the apparent long-term decrease in coral cover reported in the scientific literature results from combining data from selective, sparse, small-scale studies before 1986 with data from both small-scale studies and large-scale monitoring surveys after that date.

In other words Sweatman et al. (2011) detail problems with the methodology used by all studies that rely on the AIMS monitoring data. Yet these issues, central to the credibility of the claim that there has been a 50 per cent decline in coral cover, are ignored in De’ath et al. 2012.


This is part two of a new series on the Great Barrier Reef and claims that 50 per cent of it have been lost. Read part 1 here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/05/the-great-barrier-reef-have-we-really-lost-half-of-it-part-1-water-quality/


1. Sweatman, H., S. Delean, C. Syms. 2011. Assessing loss of coral cover on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef over two decades, with implications for longer-term trends. Coral Reefs. 30: 521-531

2. IUCN, 2013, State of State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-13/37.COM/7B, accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7B-en.pdf

3. WWF AMCS, 2013, Report to the UNESCO WHC accessed at http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/mo030_fight_for_the_reef_report_to_the_unesco_world_heritage_committee_1feb13.pdf

4. De’ath, G., K. E. Fabricius, H. Sweatman, and M. Puotinen. 2012. The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109(44): 17995-17999.

5. Data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows no increase in the number or severity of cyclones impacting Australia or the Great Barrier Reef. Click on the image for a better view…
cyclone number

This is contrary to a claim in the De’ath et al. 2012 paper that “cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean temperatures”.

6. While it is generally assumed, and inferred, that water quality at the Great Barrier Reef is deteriorating, these claims are not supported by the hard data as detailed in part 1 of this series… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/05/the-great-barrier-reef-have-we-really-lost-half-of-it-part-1-water-quality/

For example, chlorophyll monitoring on the Great Barrier Reef shows:
“Results to date show that compared with coastal regions in other parts of the world, chlorophyll a concentrations in the GBR lagoon are generally low. Chlorophyll a concentrations vary across the shelf seasonally and also with latitude. There are also persistent local gradients in chlorophyll a concentration, usually away from the coast. Consistent long-term trends in chlorophyll a concentrations haven’t yet been discerned.”. Download this text from AIMs website on April 4, 2013

Furthermore the De’ath et al. 2012 study states: “The disturbance data for COTS and cyclones show periodic and random fluctuations but no systematic long-term variation over the 27 year observation period.”

135 Responses to Haven’t Lost Half of the Great Barrier Reef: Part 2, Junk Methodology

  1. Luke May 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    “While it is generally assumed, and inferred, that water quality at the Great Barrier Reef is deteriorating, these claims are not supported by the hard data as detailed in part 1 of this series…”

    errrr where was that again Jen? Must have missed it.

  2. High Treason May 11, 2013 at 8:22 am #

    In any other field of science, this paper would go straight in to the shredder. Sounds like there has been some extreme cherry-picking here designed to get the conclusion that some entity wanted. Science by misrepresentation is FRAUD at best.

  3. Neville May 11, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    Don’t worry about Luke Jen because there is another source you can use,— Tony Burke.

    If things were really as bad as the extremists insist , the clueless Gillard govt would be promoting it ad nauseum.

    But Tony Burke seems to be very relaxed about the reef now and into the future. Also the increase in cyclones nonsense is just so much hot air. WE actually had many super cyclones during the LIA that really must have damaged the reef. See ABC Catayst.

    Just listened to Connor from the Climate institute try to spin a load of extremist garbage about co2 emissions reaching 400 ppmv or 0.04% of the atmosphere.
    Incidently that’s 0.005% more than the 0.035% that Hansen and countless other scientists insist is optimal for future co2 levels.

    Amazing stuff this co2 when a reduction of 0.005% to 0.0350% can be OK but an increase to 0.040% is a disaster. That increase of 5 thousandths of 1% of the atmosphere must really make a difference.

    Connor says we must retain the co2 tax and it is already having an impact. Whoopeee I didn’t realise that we could achieve so much in a little more than 1 year.
    But at least Luke will be very happy.

  4. Neville May 11, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    Here’s that press release from Connor of the Climate Institute.


    Amazing stuff that co2, he says in 4th paragraph that the increase is already putting the weather systems on steroids.

    Just 0.005% increase on the 0.035% ( optimum) and the weather systems are already on steroids.
    Read it and laugh, but Luke will love the mendacity.

  5. spangled drongo May 11, 2013 at 11:12 am #

    There are thousands of reefs that make up the GBR and only a very few are regularly visited. These are usually closest to the mainland and experience the greatest runoff, shipping and visitor damage.

    When we pay “experts” huge amounts to live in paradise and tell us if we have a problem, what a sinecure it is for them to guarantee their future in paradise.

    The GBR is surviving very well and the predictions of doom from these “experts” over the last half century have shown very clearly, as with similar “experts” with climate predictions, that they are generally taking their money under false pretences.

    It’s not hard to understand how these “expert gatekeeping services” become growth industries under dopey, easily conned govts.

  6. Luke May 11, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    Neville post your off-topic rat-dirt elsewhere.

    Back to the thread –

    This thread has to take the cake for sophistic argument

    “When we pay “experts” huge amounts to live in paradise ” Well Spangled let’s not bulldust – what are the huge amounts – come on stump up. Paradise is now Townsville – wow – big queues waiting to go to Townsville – fun city – hahahahahahahahahaa You libellous little shonk. “Taken money money under false pretences” – well tell them to their face or call the police – what fanatical crap Spangled. Stump up matey !

    This has to be one of Jen’s least prepared posts …

    Here’s a classic “Of course while scientists claim to be trustworthy” – DO THEY ? Who says? Reference? Talk about sophistic – just a bit of leading filler to bring in the far off Taswegian school of government’s tiresome selective opinion. Good for book sales I guess – I got my copy !

    Now what Jen hasn’t told you nor explained is that the paper actually says (and we all know that the cheer squad here NEVER read the paper in question) …

    “The rate of decline has also increased substantially,
    and has averaged ∼1.45% y−1 since ∼2006. Both the
    overall and more recent rates of decline are higher than previous
    estimates (13, 14), which were either based on time series that
    ended in 2005 (14) or covered a shorter period (1995–2009) and
    surveyed far fewer reefs using a different survey method (13).”

    So WTF – De’ath, Fabricius, Sweatman, and Puotinen EXPLICITLY address Sweatman et al and Osborne et al. Sweatman in on the paper….

    Now onto cyclones which would score a job with “60 Minutes” for editing….

    Anyone read how the cyclone damage estimates were done – of course not – we’ll leave that as an exercise. Hint RTFP. But we have a graph slipped in with no title or reference which happened to be a graph for the entire Australian region. That’s Top End and WA included.

    “This is contrary to a claim in the De’ath et al. 2012 paper that “cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean temperatures”” says the editorial here. Snippety snip. Strange how a lack of context changes things.

    In a discussion about the GBR compared to the Caribbean the paper fully says ” One commonality between both systems is that disturbances,
    especially from tropical storms, are a major driver of coral cover,
    and more acute disturbances affect reefs today compared with 50–
    100 y ago. Cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean
    temperatures, although projected increases are greater for the
    Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere (6).”

    Well Emmanuel 2005 in Nature would agree on cyclone power dissipation index ( he didn’t say numbers either !!) ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

    And how were the reef cyclone calculations done – (curiously omitted form the critique here)

    “The maximum wind speed and the number of hours with wind speeds at or
    exceeding gale force (>17 ms−1) were estimated for each 4-km grid cell within
    the GBR for each of the 34 tropical cyclones during the 27-y observation
    period. Meteorological data were provided by the Australian Bureau of
    Meteorology and by Knapp et al. (29). Surface winds were calculated for each
    cell as 10-min maximum wind speeds for every hour of each storm. Maximum
    cyclone winds averaged 32.8 ms−1 (range: 17.9–55.7 ms−1), and the mean
    duration of exposure to gales was 12.6 h (range: 1–95 h).”

    So what is the thread implying – is it De’ath, Fabricius, Sweatman, and Puotinen are the on take – living high on the hog in Paradise in Fun City on the big moolah. And Sweatman ratted out and went over to the dark side? Pfft ! Wow – time to put on my tin hat.

    And why do any of the stressors have to be increasing – stable or even improving poor water quality is a constant stressor – a new development in the context of the last 150 years added to systems visited by naturally occurring episodic cyclones, bleaching events and COTS. Constant stressors will send the system backwards.

    Anyway given Neville can introduce off-topic rat dirt to clog the thread – I did enjoy this progressive agriculture video – can-do meets GMO + ag engineering + green agronomy – he might even be increasing his soil carbon http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-05/nuffield-rob-blatchford/4656290 Maybe could use some of this improving Fitzroy water quality… anyway enough rat dirt.

    What’s the old joke – why visit the outback when you can see in the river park at Rocky and watch it wash past.

  7. Dennis Webb May 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Luke, Anyone, where is the data showing poor water quality at the GBR? Jen says it is good and gives some data for Chlorophyll. If chlorophyll is good, then where is the water quality problem with nutrients at least? She has also provided reason to doubt what has been claimed about pesticide residue.

  8. sp May 11, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    Luke = warmist desperation personified

  9. Robert May 11, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    Some thoughts on cyclones in the post-1980 period, regarded by so many as the era of CAGW.

    Interesting to look at Australia’s cyclone alley, with regard to both frequency and intensity:

    While Vance, 14 years ago, was a real terror, we see that Exmouth’s cyclone history was also most dramatic in the early 40s and through the 70s.
    Not much measured or known about 1945, as they were maybe busy just staying alive at the time, but the force was enough to bend metal telegraph poles level with the ground. Someone’s barometer measured 945 hKp during the 1875 mess that wiped out the fleet, not that that tells one much…except to be careful of spending Chrissy hols boating at Exmouth.

    NT has had some quiet times, but not many. Though high-cat cyclones are certainly not on the wane now, the 70s seem to have been the most turbulent era. Not surprising, from the decade that ended with Typhoon Tip (thankfully, not one of Australia’s own).

    As for Qld, it’s had some real brutes lately, but whether they are competition for Mahina or Innisfail 1918, that’s hard to say.

    With cyclones, it’s always worse than we thought, is it not? Mahina was certainly worse than anybody thought back in 1899. Perhaps someone like Lewandowsky (of “Frankenstorm” fame) can come up with a slogan to promote the exceptionalism of present day cyclone disasters. Maybe: All “worses” are equal but some “worses” are more equal than others. Oink oink.

  10. spangled drongo May 11, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    Yes Luke, you, like these paradise dwelling “expert” gate keepers are full of it.

    Where are the threats to the GBR from humans?


    It is the most underfished reef in the world. Kiribati reef has to produce around 4000 times the quantity of fish as the GBR to feed its people.

    Crown of Thorns?

    After 50 years the “experts” still can’t prove if they are the result of humans but they now know that the CoTs actually improve the life of the old, slow growing coral and can have good effects.

    Water quality?

    The huge area of the reef is mainly exposed to an on-shore trade wind that flushes the reef with water from the Pacific that has travelled for thousands of miles and is in an absolutely pristine state by the time it gets there. The small amount of silt laden continental runoff is inconsequential. The reef is one of those areas where the Pacific “mounds up” before the water tracks south to Tasmania.

    Oil Pollution from shipping?

    See above plus if the Persian Gulf can survive and be back to normal after Sadam Hussein’s huge oil dump which no-one cleaned up, in such a confined space, then the GBR with all its wide open ocean and nanny regs doesn’t have a worry in the world.

    You know better than I do what these “experts” cost the taxpayer to live and breathe their lifestyle in this beautiful part of the world while they “advise” us for our “benefit” and if you weren’t so keen to have a similar job yourself you might be a bit more honest about the rip-off.

  11. Luke May 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Chlorophyll – how desperate Dennis. Do some of your own research..might take you a whole 20 minutes. LOL ! Try sediment, nutrients, herbicides, which reefs, where – Jen is generically running the ye olde inactivist line which waits for a pile of coral rubble before action. You might find sediment 5-10x pre_European well documented with isotopic studies so beloved by the geology anti-enviro dip it up and flush it fraternity – isotopic fertiliser N cemented into the corals off sugar catchments. Herbicides everywhere. Effects of macroalgae, sediment and organic matter in the reef lagoon. It’s just an excuse to let development and industry run 3rd world worst practice.

    So Spanglers when are you going to tell the researchers to their face so they can snot you !

    sp = sour puss (no letters no content no brains)

  12. spangled drongo May 11, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    You surely can’t be that stupid, Luke.

    Even the “expert” gatekeepers are smarter than that. They’re perfectly aware the world knows what they are doing but they are still gonna keep doing it.

    This is the future as planned for us by our academic betters and evidenced by the Euro economies and the UN.

    But how about the dishonesty of using an unspecified 7% which would also be the most affected by continental runoff?

    Does that really mean that 50% of 7%, ie 3.5%, is the actual damage?

    Even they are honest enough to admit that the remote reef is pristine and unaffected but then it would be hard for them to claim otherwise.

  13. Robert May 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    I’d assumed that the “Death of the Reef” was a thing that started in my youth, with all the Sunday newspaper articles in the 60s. I’d also assumed that the first big COTS outbreaks occurred then, with overfishing of the Triton.

    Anyway, turns out there was a major report, accusing the government of cover-up re COTS damage to the GBR, before I was born. Requiem for a Reef was published in Brisbane in 1876.

    And you thought Verdi’s Requiem was looooong!

  14. Denis Webb May 11, 2013 at 4:21 pm #

    Luke, You are not being genuine. I have spent two days looking for references on water quality and the Great Barrier Reef. Most of the online reports provide information on catchments but not for the reef. You claim there is poor water quality. For F*** sake give us the reports.

  15. Luke May 11, 2013 at 4:52 pm #


    and don’t verbal me Dennis

  16. rosnjim@bigpond.com May 11, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Dr Vincent Gray explains the problem of “experts” here so don’t tell me they don’t know about it:


  17. Debbie May 11, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

    Give up the dancing and ducking and weaving Luke.
    That 50% fig is a misrepresentation and that is one of Jen’s major points.

  18. Luke May 11, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    Put another loading of washing on Debs. You wouldn’t know. Jen has glued a few factoids together to suit an agenda and you’re very gullible as we know.

  19. Luke May 11, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    Hey – isn’t Vincent an “expert reviewer” to the United Nations. We should all listen to Vince. I know I do. But is he slumming it at Watts?

  20. spangled drongo May 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    “We should all listen to Vince. I know I do.”

    When does the learning start?

  21. cinders May 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

    Debbie, the IUCN and WHC seem to supprt your conclusion on the 50% loss figure.
    The report of WWF Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation society, states on page 6 in relation to coral cover decline “a loss of 50.7% of initial cover”
    However The World Heritage Centre and IUCN were not prepared to repeat this claim and only reported that they “further note the outcomes of a number of important scientific and technical reports released during 2012, indicating significant loss of coral cover over the past 27 years resulting mainly from storm damage, climate change effects and crown of thorns starfish and concluding that reducing crown of thorn starfish outbreaks are a key factor in restoring the loss.”

  22. spangled drongo May 11, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    While you were over at Wattsies Luke did you read Willis’ post on Trenberth’s latest search for the golden boomerang?

    Desperate days for warmers:


  23. Dennis Webb May 11, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

    Luke, your link does not provide ANY evidence for declining water quality or even poor water quality.

    There are some arbitrary made-up categories that imply poor water quality in the inner reef. But the inner reef is naturally turbid and again I say there is no evidence to suggest any increase in turbidity or chlorophyll.

    The report is about chlorophyll and turbidity. What do you mean “chlorophyll how desperate” in the above thread. Chlorophyll is a measure of nutrient impact.

    Again I say, show me the reports that provide evidence for declining water quality. That is what all of this is prefaced on… that there is declining water quality.

  24. cohenite May 11, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

    luke’s fired up; haven’t seen him this intense since the old ocean acidification discussions when he brought in a ringer to take on Steve Short.

    luke asks “which reefs, where”;

    Asked and answered:


  25. hunter May 12, 2013 at 12:00 am #

    I look forward to the satellite or other evidence showing the 50% loss.
    The subject study does not accomplish this in any reality-based sense.
    The predictable reactionary responses of the extremists are entertaining, but argument by hand waving and jumping is not persuasive in legitimate science. Maybe on reality TV?

  26. Neville May 12, 2013 at 9:08 am #

    Cohers thanks for that link. I seem to remember something about that in the fairly recent past.

    Over at WUWT Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts have issued a challenge to the Slayers. The challenge is to provide a simple model to disprove the GHE.

    At the moment my money is on Roy and Anthony.


  27. Luke May 12, 2013 at 9:52 am #

    Arbitrary made up quantities – pigs bum Dennis. You’re just a bellicose denialist ranter at this point. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2023.1 Yes fertiliser sourced DIN increasing COTS http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:158696 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X04003868 , an array of herbicides and 5-10x pre-European turbidity is now “naturally occurring”. http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2006/McCulloch.pdf Dennis the water quality isn’t declining – it has declined – what you’re looking at is 150 years of changed water quality. Are you that simple that you think you’re going to see a little trend line dot dot dot over a few years of monitoring. Good grief. And tell us how the array of pesticides found are “natural” Dennis. http://www.rla.net.au/science/herbicides%20GBR.pdf You might also think how our northern rivers work – might the wet season flow be a tad higher – might the impact be “episodic”. And might that runoff be increasing – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010PA002050/abstract hmmmmm

    The cumulation of all this the reduction in coral cover that has been documented (and denied by the usual suspects) and now you’re denying it thinking the changed background you see is “normal”.

    The changes in land use is writ large in the corals themselves http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/2509/

    Dennis you’ve made no serious study of the facts – a pathetic investigation by someone professing to have had a “serious look”.

    Hunter takes the prize as our visiting no-content sepo. Is this ropa dope week? What satellite would be seeing detailed ecological changes over 27 years. “Never launched before – SAT” “Mystery-SAT” Perhaps you need a Tardis. hahahahaha (I like your posts hunter – never an intelligent comment just pure cheer squad rhetoric)

  28. spangled drongo May 12, 2013 at 10:38 am #

    “The cumulation of all this the reduction in coral cover that has been documented”

    Yeah, documented in some varying, selected 7% that are obviously close to the coast and river mouths following a big flood runoff.

    That has always been happening and always will.

    Ever explored and documented those northern rivers that run through the sugarcane yourself Luke? Those “polluted streams” contain quite impressive wildlife such as platypus, rails, frogs etc, living right beside the cane fields.

    They admit themselves that the further reefs are not affected so obviously they selected the most vulnerable reefs.

  29. Luke May 12, 2013 at 10:53 am #

    Ahhh the ye olde shifting goal posts – depends where “further reefs” are doesn’t it. Mid-coast reefs extend much further out. FNQ reefs closer in. Spangled will demand action when ALL the reefs are a pile of algal beds and rubble and summarily ignores the comprehensive evidence that the lagoon has changed over decades. That’s denial !

    Spangled remembers back to his youth when he saw a platypus in a rainforest stream to a sweeping unsupported no data generalisation of the current day. And who says all the fertiliser N enters the reef through rivers…. try groundwater.

  30. cinders May 12, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    This powerpoint slide http://www.pnas.org/powerpoint/109/44/17995/F1 shows a very large scale representation of the reef and the location of the areas data was gathered. The circles are clearly not to scale, reminds me of the forest coupes shown by green groups for the Tasmanian Forests. Is this the quality of mapping that Governments and UNESCO base the expenditure of billions of dollars upon?

  31. sp May 12, 2013 at 11:30 am #

    It is obvious the “survey results” are based on a very small, and biased, subset of data. More alarmism.

    From: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/some-thoughts-about-policy-for-the-aftermath-of-the-climate-wars/

    The only people, who will be left on the burning deck of the sinking ship when all else have fled, will be the political activists and the committed climate scientists, who aren’t all that clued up politically.

    “That’s a wall, look at it, and read the writing on it. You’re being flushed.

    Their reaction to that message is to scream ever more loudly, ever more dire warnings of the increasingly terrible things about to crash down on us. With such extreme behaviour, they’re rapidly pushing themselves towards the political fringe, which is exactly where we want them to be. They’re not thinking too straight. It’s like watching a manifestation of that definition of insanity; persistently and single-mindedly doing exactly the same thing over and over and somehow expecting a different result.

    Even the science wing of the cause is trapped in that same obsessive compulsive loop. No matter how many times they try to rehabilitate things like the hockey stick, it’s by now irrelevant. Even if they could get it to successfully run the length of the skeptic gauntlet, it would still be irrelevant. Crying wolf louder and louder, results in people not listening, harder and harder. That’s the basic syndrome and they’re by now already well into diminishing returns.”

  32. spangled drongo May 12, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    You’ve checked them out lately then, have you Luke?

  33. Luke May 12, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    sp – the reef survey results are actually drawn on a very large sample. But a goon like you who doesn’t read can only parrot. As for nobody listening think about this survey doofus http://cairnspost.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx You’re talking through your hat. No facts sp sauce reduced to changing the topic back to AGW.

    Spangled – just put up your stream survey of biota or STFU. Old codger anecdotes of back in the day don’t count.

  34. sp May 12, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    Luke – “Crying wolf louder and louder, results in people not listening, harder and harder.”

  35. cinders May 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    As a Tasmanian, where burning wood to heat the hearth on cold winter nights is no longer considered clean, green renewable energy, I have wanted to spend a few days on the reef enjoying the warmth and viewing the coral and topical fish, alas to busy paying taxes to fund Univesities, Instiutes and scientists to afford such a trip. So I am shocked that this “mathematical” model is now suspect after the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) ” researchers have spent more than 2,700 days at sea and we’ve invested in the order of $50 million in this monitoring program”.
    Will someone please pay for me to visit and just spend 2.7 days in “paradise”, I am sure I too can report!

  36. ghl May 12, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    The response not one journalist made when interviewing Prof Hoegh-Guldberg
    “50%, that’s terrible Prof. MMmmm… Which half is that then?”

  37. Luke May 12, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    Well don’t be a whinging old codger shivering in the cold Cinders. Move on up to Fun City and get away from the economic basket case that is Tasmania with its rampant forest destruction and gun toting maddies. Go troppo and get in touch with your inner mango. Don’t sook just move – so we can close down the enviro distaster that southern Australia is.

  38. spangled drongo May 12, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    Luke, you are the one that is claiming that the runoff from streams that are well known to support diverse ecosystems are killing the coral.

    If you are claiming these streams do not support any diverse ecosystems and are so contaminated by humans as to kill coral way out at sea you need to provide some evidence.

    My obs of diverse wildlife in streams that do not even have trees between them and the cane fields is quite recent and, for me, quite surprising.

    OTOH, silt alone, from a big runoff will kill coral and wipe out eco systems and this can and does happen even without farming. Farmers value their assets but that is not to say they couldn’t do a better job sometimes.

  39. cinders May 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Luke, us old codgers need to stick together, as we both remember that Tasmania’s green disease started in north Queensland when Richo locked up the Daintree forests and destroyed the local timber industry http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/05/a-note-from-the-daintree/ . It’s ironic that his former junior staffer, Tony Burke is locking up 170,000 ha of high production forest to extend the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area and destroy about half of the remaining forest industry. Tony has also vowed to save the reef with the World’s best network of marine reserves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFlWi3v6nNI
    Looking forward for a walk amongst the pollution, the reserves and the corals with you.

  40. Luke May 12, 2013 at 6:32 pm #

    Well the GBR is a big place from the Burnett to the Daintree and beyond. Systems and streams vary.

    But some look like http://www.abc.net.au/corp/communications/assets/newsletters/burdekin_r_m1630057.jpg


    You say “killing” and “wipe out” – pretty alarmist Spanglers – I say stressor – ove rtime it means major changes and less resilience – the impact is quite well documented http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2023.1

    On Cinders $50m – well at $2M per annum supporting a $1B peraanum tourism industry with 1.6M visitors per annum and 700 tourism operators that’s good value. Hilariously the public service is Tassy’s public service is highest per capita of any state and he’s critiquing Qld. pullease !

  41. Luke May 12, 2013 at 6:35 pm #

    Cinders I look forward to your analysis of the value of the Daintree as a tourism asset vs logging.

  42. spangled drongo May 12, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    Luke, looks like you finally agree with me on what’s the real cause.

    Here’s another great bed-wetting story of eco-degradation that doesn’t let the facts get in the way:


  43. hunter May 13, 2013 at 1:45 am #

    In baseball terms, Luke is batting .000. Luke’s efforts on this are not really any different from that great line,
    “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
    The GBR, like the ocean pH, extreme weather events, sea level rise and the rest of AGW hysterical rent seeking claims, is just failing to cooperate with the nice scary stories.
    The AGW cultists keep telling us it is all a disaster underway, and the more we look for actual evidence of the climate catastrophe, the more they act like our pal Luke: Yelling, dissembling, name calling and ‘massaging’ data.
    The biggest difference between the kooks of AGW and UFO kooks is that UFO kooks don’t charge us a lot of money for their entertainment efforts. AGW kooks rely on huge loads of public money. Oh, and the movies made about UFO’s are nearly all better than the movies about AGW.

  44. Luke May 13, 2013 at 5:46 am #

    Devastating rebuttal dripping with science facts. Hunter isn’t even on topic. At least Neville brings press clipping rat dirt as an offering.

  45. hunter May 13, 2013 at 5:50 am #

    You are kidding just who in pretending that you are making a science argument?
    You are the post-modern equivalent of rabidly debating angels dancing on pin heads and demanding everyone discuss your used cow fodder in your terms.
    It takes a fool to even buy into the idea of the GBR being 50% destroyed.
    You are apparently one of those fools.
    But please, keep on with the blog equivalent of being part of one of those clown car tricks where endless numbers of clowns come pouring out of the prop clown car.

  46. Luke May 13, 2013 at 7:42 am #

    Wow what a followup. Face it you’re a mindless denialist parrot. Out of your depth and haven’t read anything about this issue. Do you normally go round opining on stuff you know nothing about.

    “GBR being 50% destroyed” – even wrong as a statement. Say something intelligent I dare you.

  47. spangled drongo May 13, 2013 at 8:14 am #

    Is the ice age beginning?

    Late spring in Minnesota:


  48. Ian Thomson May 13, 2013 at 8:25 am #

    Hi Cinders,
    Don’t forget me when you head off North, I can get enough alarming results in 2.7 days to keep us up there in style. If that doesn’t work we’ll jump on a coal ship and at least get on the evening news as experts.
    We’ll fly out of Melbourne and play spot the cleared bit looking down on that endless patch of bush.
    I wonder truly if Luke has actually ever seen Tasmania or any of SE Oz. Ask me for an enviro disaster and I’ll get you to pop into Emu Plains and count the emus.
    Or visit the ” growth Capital of Australia ” , the ACT, find out how they can build all those houses and streets without disturbing the environment.
    Of course some environmental sacrifice has to be made to house all the people who will save the rest of the country from human beings.
    Seems you can always rely on members of Luke’s Green Church to massacre messengers.

  49. michael william lockhart May 13, 2013 at 8:55 am #


  50. cohenite May 13, 2013 at 9:35 am #

    luke, you appear to be channelling Bird, assuming you are not Bird batting for the other side; just what is your point under all the 2nd rate rancour? Do you expect the GBR be left pristine with some sort of exclusion zone and that no agriculture occur along its length?

    At least you appear to have excluded AGW and are focusing on ‘real’ pollution issues but then that is not even clear, so which is it?

  51. Luke May 13, 2013 at 9:53 am #

    2nd rate rancour – you must be talking about sp and Hunter.

    Yes I have excluded AGW for argument’s sake. You could read what I have written perhaps?

    The point is that coastal development has had a significant impact – ongoing. The reef is a massive World Heritage asset and a major tourism industry. So we can end up with a Caribbean or improve our game. The pathway to adaptation and improved industry practice is clear. And will even be more profitable. Fertiliser and pesticides cost money ! These inputs and soil are more productively placed in the paddock than in the waterways. So why Jen runs these put-on campaigns I don’t know. Industry can move to best practice. Her argument has no serious analysis and is simply rhetorical handwaving and utter rubbish. For heavens sake the paper she uses in her lead is addressed in the new paper she’s critiquing. All this is inactivism of the worst kind.

  52. hunter May 13, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    You are attracted to alarmist hype like a moth to a candle.
    AGW, GBR, it is all the same.
    I would suggest that you stop preening your feathers before you start talking about parroting.
    The stated goal of the research is to sell the idea that 50% of the GBR is wrecked by wicked humans.
    More alarmist crap, no different from the other false calls of GBR death from a growing list of problems.
    What is worse than inactivism is rent seeking pseudo-activism.
    Sort of like what you echo endlessly, whether it is AGW, GBR, OA, slr, drought, rain, etc. etc. etc.
    Angels on pinheads.

  53. Luke May 13, 2013 at 11:05 am #

    Just filler hunter. Drivel – go home yank!

  54. Luke May 13, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    And speaking of drought – it’s on again – I missed the predictions from Jen’s new system? Or the sceptics – surley they knew. Why haven’t we been briefed?



    Where’s plan B? Where’s Bob ? Sceptics said it would be raining !! Shame ! No warning ….

  55. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    So Luke?
    What are you claiming now?
    That Jen is misrepresenting a misrepresentation?
    How ironic.
    BTW…re your last post @ 11.13 am….sceptics (as a demographic) said no such thing!!!!!
    On long term records….this is nothing out of the ordinary. Seasonal droughts are extremely common in Oz….QLD included.
    You wouldn’t be projecting by any chance would you?…Or maybe doing that straw man thingy?
    The beef glut and it’s causes are the real issue….not the weather.

  56. John Sayers May 13, 2013 at 11:30 am #

    Luke – the beef glut is because Indonesia only took 1/4 million head instead of their normal 3/4 million head. Thanks ABC!

    Please don’t compare our coral reefs to the Caribbean as it’s well known they are totally different ecologies and our pacific reefs fare much better than the Atlantic based reefs.

  57. hunter May 13, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    The expensive filler is the rent seeking, moral hazard bs passing for environmental science today.
    Sceptics said weather would continue to be variable.
    And son-of-a-gun, it is.

  58. Luke May 13, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Debbie – you wouldn’t know ! Sceptics have faile dto provide us with their well know climate advice. WHERE WAS IT ? sound of crickets – Check your rainfall map dearie. Check the rural news. There are multiple factors – drought is a big one. Check issues with droving and agistment. What would a rice grower know?

    I can definitely compare similar drivers in the Caribbean John Sayers – hand waving that we’re somwhere else is weak as water. But try VietNam if you like.

    Hunter lkes to throw around newspeak words like “rent seeking” – clueless matey – go and do economics 101. Still awaiting an intelligent comment instead of tea party filler. And as we all know reading any of the science is above your primary school only education level.

  59. John Sayers May 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    “July 12, 2012 — Coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific region, including the Great Barrier Reef, recover faster from major stresses than their Caribbean counterparts, leading marine scientists have said.
    Dr George Roff and Professor Peter Mumby from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland told the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns on July 12 that coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific Ocean are naturally tougher than the Caribbean reefs.
    “The main reason that Indo-Pacific reefs are more resilient is they have less seaweed than the Caribbean Sea,” Dr Roff says. “Seaweed and corals are age-old competitors in the battle for space. When seaweed growth rates are lower, such as the Indo-Pacific region, the reefs recover faster from setbacks. This provides coral with a competitive advantage over seaweed, and our study suggests that these reefs would have to be heavily degraded for seaweeds to take over.”

    “This doesn’t mean that we can be complacent — reefs around the world are still heavily threatened by climate change and human activities,” he says. “What it indicates is Indo-Pacific reefs will respond better to protection, and steps we take to keep them healthy have a better chance of succeeding.”
    “Many of the doom and gloom stories have emanated from the Caribbean, which has deteriorated rapidly in the last 30 years,” says Professor Mumby. “We now appreciate that the Indo-Pacific and Caribbean are far more different than we thought.”


  60. Luke May 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm #

    And so “What it indicates is Indo-Pacific reefs will respond better to protection, and steps we take to keep them healthy have a better chance of succeeding.”

    Yuh ! So support best management practice – the point !

    and have some macroalgae http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2023.1

    and try some east Asian reefs John http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/outreach/coral/sor/sor_asia.html

  61. Luke May 13, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    and your quote John “”All reefs face an uncertain future, particularly in places with lots of human activities,” they say. “We still need to curb the overfishing of herbivorous fish, as they are very sought after in the Pacific. We also need to control the level of nutrients in the water and prevent runoff when necessary.”

  62. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    Speaking of newspeak….in what context are you continually using the word ‘inactivism’? Even spellcheck doesn’t like it Luke.
    Your special brand of hand waving is sooooooo out-dated. You are seemingly operating from the assumption that no improvements have been made and/or that no one is interested in making improvements. You are also asking really silly questions about where farmers would prefer to keep their fertiliser and pesticides….like doh!!!! where would you think?????In the bloody ocean????
    They are completely ridiculous and redundant questions.
    If you would ever bother to check you would find that Australian Agriculture is, on balance, a world leader in best practice.
    We’re also doing a pretty damn good job of protecting the GBR in Australia in comparison to other reefs around the world.
    But of course…nothing is perfect and neither does anyone operate under the idea that humanity does not impact the natural environment. That is also a ridiculous assumption.
    Interestingly Luke… a rice farmer knows a reasonable amount about water management and nutrient loads and runoff etc…..
    Also….interestingly….can’t hang out my washing today because we have had over 20ml rain here and the washing I hung out yesterday is still wet. The forecasts were not even reasonably close.
    Lucky that rice harvest is over.

  63. John Sayers May 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    Yes – I read that Luke – we need more parrot fish. I also remember reading an extensive study made of the coral triangle a couple of years ago, unfortunately I can’t retrieve the link, but it basically said that the reefs were in excellent order apart from sections where local fishermen had overfished or used dynamite.

    ” control the level of nutrients in the water and prevent runoff” – you may recall that is the principal area of Dr Peter Ridd’s research yet he’s the one suggesting the reef is in a better state than the bedwetters are letting on.

  64. John Sayers May 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    good to hear you are getting some rain in the Riverina at long last – could be a good wheat harvest this year Deb?

  65. handjive May 13, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    @Comment from: Luke May 13th, 2013 at 11:13 am

    “And speaking of drought – it’s on again”

    Luke the ignoramus strikes!

    So Luke, you gullible ignoramus, what is causing the drought this time?

    27 April 2012, It’s Official: Australia to be drought free

    At 398ppm of co2 Australia is drought free.
    Logically, co2 DOES NOT cause drought.

    May 6, 2013, New Zealand’s worst drought in 30 years is over

    Would Luke the ignoramus like to remind everyone what the co2 levels are now?
    It’s ok Luke, I’ll help you: 400ppm

    So, NZ is drought free @ 400ppm.

    Again, it is obvious to everyone but the ignorant, co2 is NOT the cause of droughts.
    (or floods, or snow, or cyclones, or tornadoes, or shrinking sheep, or women to become prostitutes, or bush fires, or …)

  66. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    It’s definitely a nice start John.

  67. cohenite May 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    Hands up those who don’t support this:

    “We still need to curb the overfishing of herbivorous fish, as they are very sought after in the Pacific. We also need to control the level of nutrients in the water and prevent runoff when necessary.”

    Maybe luke should be worrying about this instead:

  68. Robert May 13, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

    “Sceptics said it would be raining !! Shame ! No warning ….” If they exist, could somebody find just some of those skeptics? I’d like to ask what continent they thought they were on. Recent drought in Qld, the South-West of WA, western Vic, a touch of it right here on the midcoast of NSW…next year somebody else will be copping it, or the same people as well.

    Eastern Australia was in rain deficit for half a century after the the Federation Drought, floods and fair seasons not withstanding. Just as well we had forestry and mining, which are easier when the weather is dry. Just when everyone had forgotten about the 1890s, along came the 1950s – unscripted, unexpected, like everything else in this bloody continent!

    Before all that, Kidman played the climate differences across the continent to buy and sell, because he learned early on that there will be drought somewhere, with cheap stock and expensive feed. Of course, not even Kidman could come through the 1902 climate, but he revived his fortunes later by once again playing the differences.

    There may have been years in the fifties and seventies when we were all drought-free, but it would be odd if that were so. In fact, it’s tricky to find a year when we were all dry. The whoppers of 1902-3 and 1982-3 came close. The “strong” El Nino of 1941-2 parched the east but brought an absolute drenching to the centre of WA (a bit like 1914-15). The “strong” of the previous year parched both sides of the continent in even fashion, except for patches in the north. The “weak” of 1951-2 parched the top and watered the bottom of the continent. The weird one was 1969-70, which watered the east and parched the west…go figure that one. Think maybe ENSO might be a scratchy, helpful observation set, rather than a “climate mechanism”?

    “Sceptics said it would be raining!! Shame…” So who are these skeptics? Where are they? And what continent could they possibly be talking about?

  69. Luke May 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    “If you would ever bother to check you would find that Australian Agriculture is, on balance, a world leader in best practice.”

    Uh no actually – actually if you bother to check there is a wide range of practice out there. BARP ! Thanks for playing Debs – NEXT !

    (I am really stunned Debs that you can parrot stuff like this) Let’s sample one of the many regional reports on land practices http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/regions/burdekin/burdekin-first-report-card.aspx you can read the others as an exercise – get yourself educated Debs !

    John ” control the level of nutrients in the water and prevent runoff” – you may recall that is the principal area of Dr Peter Ridd’s research” – I must have missed it ??? Where’s this?

    Handjive – did I mention AGW and Drought – BARP ! Thanks for playing – NEXT ! And if AGW was involved why would be so silly as to analyse it in the way you have ? Amazing … Try this – it may help – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

  70. Luke May 13, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Robert – all the sceptics just knew it was goingt to rain again – so I’m just after their all knowing prediction for this drought – I must have missed it – where is it again?? Surely I must have overlooked it.

  71. sp May 13, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    Gosh, Luje is BARPING a lot these days, must be the result of internalising his externalities over an extended period. Let it all out Luke, let it all out!!!

  72. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    To quote you…..
    What utter tosh!
    BTW Luke….
    It did rain again….didn’t it?
    I think ‘all the sceptics’ (to quote you again) also knew that we would have dry periods and droughts again….what’s your actual definition of an “all knowing prediction”?
    I’m still waiting for your definition of ‘inactivism’ too (my spellcheck still doesn’t like that word).
    And Luke…pray tell?????
    On balance….where is Agriculture practiced more responsibly on the globe?
    You seem to have deliberately missed the ‘it’s not perfect’ caveat.

  73. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

    AND…before we light into more insults….please pay attention to the title and the content of this post.
    Jen is rightly questioning 2 things….
    1) The misrepresentation of that 50% figure and
    2) The veracity of the methodology that underlies that 50% claim.

    I haven’t seen anyone other than Luke claim that humans have had no impact on the reef (albeit by a ‘straw man’ type manoeuvre)

  74. Johnathan Wilkes May 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

    NO intention to defend Luke. (bold)

    Here are a couple of definitions, I don’t think the first link is the one Luke had in mind.

    I would imagine this is closer to his definition, although the way his mind works, your guess is as good as mine.

  75. Debbie May 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

    or maybe this? 🙂

  76. handjive May 13, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

    REPLY @Comment from: Luke May 13th, 2013 at 3:41 pm Quote:

    “Handjive – did I mention AGW and Drought – BARP !”

    Once again for the slow ones amongst us.

    “Comment from: Luke May 13th, 2013 at 11:13 am

    And speaking of drought – it’s on again – I missed the predictions from Jen’s new system?”

    True, you didn’t mention fraudulent AGW in that sentence, but, by saying “its on again,” the implication is obvious to “pre-drought is over, co2 is to blame” junk climate science.

    Your gutless, fact free, pointless, un-scientific, pathetic childish response, which is possibly your best work yet, is further evidence that you cannot explain the drought you claim is “back.”

    You just mouth and copy/paste information you can’t comprehend.
    Can you copy/paste & link where any junk climate science predicted a drought free 400ppm?
    The UN-IPCC? Where did they say it?
    Barf, not BARP might be a better word to follow that crap.

    Thanks for playing. Game over.

  77. cohenite May 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

    luke has kindly linked to a study on the Burdekin area of QLD; it doesn’t say much and the criteria for distinguishing good and bad farming is unclear.

    Some time ago my mate Leon Ashby was a farmer around this area; no doubt he would be considered a bad farmer; I have put this up before but I urge everyone to look at it:

  78. Robert May 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    “Robert – all the sceptics just knew it was goingt to rain again – so I’m just after their all knowing prediction for this drought – I must have missed it – where is it again?? Surely I must have overlooked it.”

    Luke, this disconnected anger, it’s not healthy. You appear to be cheering for drought, as if that monster needed any encouragement in Australia. Of course there is and will be drought in Australia. Drought won’t let you down, any more than flooding. It’s going to come, it’s never been far away, it’s never been away for long. This is Australia. We know too well. Last year’s short, sharp drought spoiled a lot of my own plans, that’s for sure. Eastern Oz has had a bit more rainfall all up since the 1950s, but it’s still a dry continent, with no guarantees. Who is arguing otherwise? Where are these skeptics who say they can predict drought and rain? Who are you talking about? With whom are you arguing?

    You appear to be cheering for drought, like it will help you make some point or punish people you don’t approve of. Maybe Deb, because she’s a woman, produces lots of food, runs a business and a family, makes you feel a bit inadequate? Get over that. Not healthy.

  79. Robert May 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm #

    Something else that won’t let you down is a dramatic plume from a northern coastal river when it’s been raining like the clappers. Let’s hope our fresh plumes don’t become “graphic proof” like those photogenic poley bears moping on ice floes. I’m sure there’s more we can be doing to conserve the reef…but something tells me there are people out there who need to conserve damage itself, people for whom improvements in conservation represent a lack of photo-ops and agenda driving.

    Mind you, I wouldn’t go fishing or swimming in a fresh plume where Ross Garnaut has been mining.

  80. spangled drongo May 13, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    C’mon Luke, you love droughts!

    If there’s one thing you get off on, it’s drought assistance to farmers.

    Here’s something else you specialise in:


  81. Luke May 13, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    Cohenite – not really – Leon is a progressive farmer with plenty of ideas. But he’s a good campaigner – he’s does a comparison of a drought year with a non-drought year with his ploughing banks – very norty. But water spreading isn’t new.

    And he’s left out a massive amount of stuff he doesn’t want you to know as all good campaigners do. He’s set himself up as the standard model – he’s not. Not allowed to burn – what bunk !

  82. spangled drongo May 13, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    Cohers, Leon will be pleased to see the Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill 2013 of Campbell Newman’s come in.

  83. spangled drongo May 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm #

    It can be read here:


  84. cohenite May 13, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    Thanks SD; I’ll direct Leon to it.

    The pendulum had swung too far under Beattie; a return to some degree of self-assessment will be welcome, albeit too late for Leon who was driven from the land.

  85. John Sayers May 14, 2013 at 6:45 am #

    “I must have missed it ??? Where’s this?”

    Yes – you missed it.



  86. Luke May 14, 2013 at 7:30 am #

    As I said John – must have missed it. “control the level of nutrients in the water and prevent runoff” – errr nope !!

  87. John Sayers May 14, 2013 at 7:47 am #

    Oh Really!

    Just one – there are more!

    Wang Y, Ridd PV, Heron ML, Stieglitz TC & Orpin AR (2007) Flushing time of solutes and pollutants in the central Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 58, 778 – 791

    He also supervises a team of PhD students studying various aspects of sediment (nutrients) movement in mangroves and coastal reefs.

    Clearly he is as well informed of the effects of agriculture, nutrients and runoffs as anyone else.

    He just happens to disagree with you so you brush him off, as usual.

  88. Neville May 14, 2013 at 8:28 am #

    John the scientists in the above post would have forgotten more about reefs than Luke will ever know.
    Luke is just a very well resourced taxpayer funded troll who throws links and deceptive half truths around with abandon to try and muddy the waters.

    But even Luke can’t/won’t answer the mitigation ponzi fraud, so he then resorts to abuse to try to cover his backside.

    At least Flannery had to come clean after the pressure put on by Bolt. I suppose even Robyn Williams must be given some credit for blurting out the “Yes 100 metres is possible” idiocy as well.

    Also Bolt managed to get ( at long last ) warmist Prof Roger Jones to give an actual measurable benefit from Australia’s reduction in co2 by the end of this century.

    His estimate was an unmeasurable and highly dubious 0.0038 C reduction in temp by 2100. At least he had the guts to belatedly respond and actually give a number.

    How that reduction of four thousandths of a degree C can justify spending billions $ every year until 2100 must be beyond anyone who has even a child’s understanding of simple logic and reason.

    Meanwhile the Non OECD countries will increase emissions of co2 by 73% by 2035 and from a much higher base than the near flatlining OECD.

  89. Luke May 14, 2013 at 9:01 am #

    John – nope – nothing with agriculture and grazing which is the source. Don’t work with them – no action. So irrelevant.

    Neville post your off-topic rat dirt elsewhere.

  90. el gordo May 14, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    ‘Neville post your off-topic rat dirt elsewhere.’


    ‘Roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon were added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That’s about a quarter of all the CO₂ ever pumped out by the burning of fossil fuels. And the world’s temperature? No warming trend.

    ‘Will the global warming hullabaloo now quietly go away? Has it blown up with a bang? Nope. It’s religion. And power. And big money.

    ‘And history amply demonstrates that religions mixed with power and money readily survive long past their use-by dates.’

    Rodney Hide

  91. spangled drongo May 14, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    Yes Neville, don’t upset our Luke with “rat dirt” embarrassing facts.

    Luke, it is hard to take seriously someone in as much denial as you.

  92. Neville May 14, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Alright Luke I’ll agree it is off topic but the rat dirt slur is a joke. I’m giving you the facts and the numbers from out of the mouths of the warmists and assorted urgers so it must be their rat dirt not mine.

    But hey just tell us where they’re wrong and give us your own estimates for SLR, temp increase, extreme weather, floods, droughts etc and how much OZ’s mitigation effort until 2100 will help?
    At least some of these religious fundamentalists have the guts to promote and try to justify their barking mad cult. Have you? Ooops sorry I think we all know your answer don’t we? Just pile on more pig ignorant abuse.

  93. Neville May 14, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    Amazing what R&D and new technology can achieve. But if true this really will make the NBN obselete.
    But hey just vote for Labor and the Greens and flush perhaps another borrowed 90 billion $ down the drain.


  94. hunter May 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    Luke claiming skeptics it would ‘rain again’ is one of the shriller bits of distraction I have seen him yet perform.
    It is meaningless, it is obviously pulled from his nethers, and it is a distraction:
    The reef is not 50% damaged by AGW/runoff/over fishing.
    This is just another of the many rounds of reef death sentences the hypesters use to shake down a gullible govt.

  95. Luke May 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

    Keep in topic guys – why don’t you lobby Jen for an open thread entitled “Rat dirt”.

    Now you have to realise that you guys have taught me everything I know. Rat dirt is one of your own quotes. I just invert all your insults and you have trained me. Do unto others ….

    Neville you really are simply disingenuous – you continually concoct a paradigm where serious AGW literature claims everything – you would well know on some issues the science doesn’t know – e.g. tornadoes – and there is a thing called natural variability – so the issue is to determine signals emerging from a noisy background. Some of this has been well attempted and you have not been bothered to even seriously consider those results. I’m not going to bother discussing at with you as you’ve never shown any nous or ability to comprehend. You’re a nong and a ranter.

    As for barking mad cultists – you rave more than anyone. I have told you I don’t think unilateral action is sensible ie. carbon tax. But if AGW bites as expected in sub-tropicals zones then the impact side of the equation has become massive. All of this lost on you as you can’t see anymore than next week and your level of science is a chart lifted from BoM’s site. Your addiction to Bolt is laughable – you’ve just bought into the rightest whingers paradigm. Not everyone has signed up to the daily serve of negativity, hostility and bile – there are positive things to do.

    But the theme here is inactivism. Do nothing always. Protect the status quo at all costs.

  96. Luke May 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    “The reef is not 50% damaged by AGW/runoff/over fishing.”

    and your evidence as a remote off-shore yank is what? Your personal opinion? hmmmm that’s valuable – not !

    Just filler….

  97. kuhnkat May 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    Lukey BABY!!!

    Don’t you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest?? Doesn’t STRESSING organisms force them to adapt and either DIE or get STRONGER?? Why would we want a bunch of WEAK organisms laying around sucking up our living space and nutrients if they aren’t STRONG!!


  98. Neville May 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    Luke just who is disingenuous? I’ve told you repeatedly that I accept that co2 is a GHG and if doubled to 560ppmv it would probably add up to one degree C to the temp of the planet.

    Further I’ve also said that there should be more R&D, hopefully leading to new technology that may one day result in new cheap energy sources for everyone.

    But I also know that we can’t make a difference (through stupid mitigation practices) to temp or climate while more co2 emissions soar via countries in the Non OECD.

    You must know that all govts still decieve the people by claiming that we must and CAN mitigate CAGW when there is a maths certainty that this cannot be done?

    It’s only commonsense we must forget about wasting endless borrowed billions$ on the delusional mitigation nonsense and use a much smaller amount on more R&D and new technology.

    Mitigation is a delusional con and fraud and there is no excuse for any govt or individual to believe in it.

  99. Debbie May 14, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    So Luke?
    Has the reef lost 50% in the last 27 years…. or….. has that 50% figure been grossly misrepresented… or…. perhaps that 50% has been ‘cherry picked’?
    Considering the reef is world listed I would reasonably assume that Hunter as an ‘off shore yank’ has just as much right to comment and show interest as anyone else.
    If you want to deny non- Australian comment…. then it would presumably have to come off the world heritage list… wouldn’t it?
    Also Luke….apparently you have defined ‘inactivism’ as:
    Do nothing always. Protect the status quo at all costs.
    You have implied that is the general theme of this blog.
    I would now ask:
    Do nothing about what?
    Which/what status quo is being protected ‘at all costs’?
    Where is your evidence of this ‘inactivism’ behaviour at this blog?
    (And spellcheck still doesn’t like it!)

  100. Luke May 14, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    “Has the reef lost 50% in the last 27 years…. or….. has that 50% figure been grossly misrepresented… or…. perhaps that 50% has been ‘cherry picked’?

    Well Debbie or is that figure quite robust and Jen is simply campaigning on familair themes. Which is it Debs. Do you know?

    “Considering the reef is world listed I would reasonably assume that Hunter as an ‘off shore yank’ has just as much right to comment and show interest as anyone else.”

    Not really.

  101. John Sayers May 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    Oh, so how the nutrients flush out to sea via mangrove beds isn’t research associated with the source, agriculture?

  102. el gordo May 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    ‘Keep in topic guys – why don’t you lobby Jen for an open thread entitled “Rat dirt”.

    I second comrade Luke, its important that we keep up-to-speed on developments elsewhere, particularly the northern hemisphere.

    ‘Temperatures in parts of south west England and south Wales will probably not reach much higher than about 6C (43F) or 7C (45F) tomorrow.

    ‘The average for this time of year would be nearer 15C (59F) so temperatures will be well below the seasonal average.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324110/UK-weather-Snow-showers-predicted-fall-Britain-summer-just-weeks-away.html#ixzz2TFx0wwLv
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  103. cohenite May 14, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

    We all agree that the GBR has significant enviromental and economic value; genuine pollution and threats from such things as shipping should be minimised.

    But the notion that what is happening in terms of run-off from agriculture is having profound effect is both unproved in terms of that effect and comparatively insignificant; the GBR is 18 millions old; 70,000 years ago this happened:


    The GBR is still here.

    Some perspective please.

  104. Debbie May 14, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

    Do you?
    Which is it indeed?
    To me it still looks like you’re arguing that it is OK to misrepresent because everyone else is doing it.

    Not really? Huh?

    And the ‘inactivism’ theme/ behaviour?

    C’mon Luke. . . how about you back up your accusations?

  105. Luke May 14, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Standard Debs nonsense – keep up the Gatling gun questions. Sucker your opponent into more and more mindless questions. Debs – Jen’s proposition is a baseless assertion against a major peer reviewed paper. She’s sprayed a bunch of claims – glued with a few loose factoids – and you’ve thought “well gee that must be so then”. Why? Be sceptical. Go study the paper in detail. Report back. I have given you plenty. Your turn.

    Hunter isn’t entitled to be have his equally vacuous assertions well received. Although I defend his right to be silly and say them.

  106. hunter May 14, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    The GBR is now only a topic for AGW believing Australians to comment on?
    Some signs you know in your heart you are wrong on this:
    Shriller than normal name calling
    Seeking to limit discussion
    Recasting the question (50% is not about 50%)
    Ignoring the long list of other failed predictions of GBR doom
    Ignoring the questions of others
    Keep it up, Luke.

  107. hunter May 14, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    Luke’s apparent ancestors were busy spreading climate alarm in Australia even in the 19th century:
    “The concern back then involved the effect an expanding telegraph system might have on – you guessed it – the climate. The article says that if there were “sufficient electrical connection by wires around the earth” with the Earth itself, the planet’s polarity could be reversed.

    The result would be a “sudden melting of the vast ice fields” followed by a “glacial flood” that would wipe out the human race. The article continues:

    Of course, tremendous earthquakes would follow…Whether this theory prove [sic] correct or not, there cannot be a doubt that something has of late gone wrong with atmospherical arrangements, and perhaps the telegraph wires are not wholly blameless in the matter.”
    Irony, thy name is “Luke”.

  108. Luke May 14, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    What a sepo troll

  109. Ian Thomson May 15, 2013 at 8:02 am #

    O/T I know,
    How the bullshit is constructed –
    “These villages, whose residents are nearly all native Alaskans, are already experiencing the flooding and erosion that are the signature effects of climate change in Alaska. The residents of a number of villages – including Newtok – are now actively working to leave their homes and the lands they have occupied for centuries and move to safer locations.”
    Centuries !!
    HOLD IT, in 1959 they moved to a swamp. Couldn’t get the groceries into the old place.

    “That became Newtok. Current state officials admit the location – on low-lying mud flats between the river and the Bering Sea – was far from perfect. It certainly wasn’t chosen with a view to future threats such as climate change.

    “The places are often where they are because it was easy to unload the building materials and build the school and the post office there,” said Larry Hartig, who heads the state’s Commission on Environmental Conservation. “But they weren’t the ideal place to be in terms of long-term stability and it’s now creating a lot of problems that are exacerbated by melting permafrost and less of the seasonal sea ice that would form barriers between the winter storms and uplands.”


    Wasn’t it this coast where 18 months ago they were facing disaster because ships were blocked by ice from supplying them ? So winter storm surge gets in, but ships cant.

  110. gavin May 15, 2013 at 9:11 am #


    Nev “I’ve told you repeatedly that I accept that co2 is a GHG”

    What have I missed, hey

  111. hunter May 15, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    The AGW extremists are reduced to sputtering non-answers. How typical.
    Meanwhile, the grave issue of just last year, slr, is turning out to actually not be that big a deal:


    “OSLO, May 14 (Reuters) – A melt of ice on Greenland and Antarctica is likely to be less severe than expected this century, limiting sea level rise to a maximum of 69 cm (27 inches), an international study said on Tuesday.

    Even so, such a rise could dramatically change coastal environments in the lifetimes of people born today with ever more severe storm surges and erosion, according to the ice2sea project by 24, mostly European, scientific institutions.

    Some scientific studies have projected sea level rise of up to 2 metres by 2100, a figure that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called a worst case that would swamp large tracts of land from Bangladesh to Florida.

    Ice2sea, a four-year project to narrow down uncertainties of how melting ice will pour water into the oceans, found that sea levels would rise by between 16.5 and 69 cm under a scenario of moderate global warming this century.

    “This is good news” for those who have feared sharper rises, David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey who led the ice2sea project, told Reuters in a telephone interview.”

    Just as skeptics said.
    Alarmism, even when dressed up all science-like, is still alarmism.
    Notice how even in this article, the rent seekers focus only on the extreme end of the new much reduced range?
    What is it about being a true believer in alarmist tripe that reduces the criticalpowers of allegedly smart people?
    And Luke, do you really want to keep pushing the immature pose that only Australians can comment on things like the GBR?
    Or is this fallacy of yours why your government is now nearly alone in implementing ridiculous non-workable so-called climate change laws?
    Laws that when fully implemented will do nothign for the GBR, slr, climate or anything other than lining the pockets of your government and their insider pals?

  112. Debbie May 15, 2013 at 11:23 am #

    The much published claim is that we have lost 50% of the GBR in the last 27 years.
    I have read the paper….it says no such thing.
    Neither does it categorically point the finger at Ag runoff and/or human activity as the major cause.
    What in particular are you defending and/ or attacking?
    You seem to still be saying that Jen is misrepresenting a misrepresentation….which is highly ironic as well as not making much sense.

  113. handjive May 15, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    Well, 48 hours later from Luke’s stupid claim;

    “And speaking of drought – it’s on again – I missed the predictions from Jen’s new system?”
    (Luke: May 13th, 2013 at 11:13 am)

    So let’s visit the barf that this ignorant idiot, Luke said for some more fun.

    “And if AGW was involved why would be so silly as to analyse it in the way you have,” queried Luke.
    (Luke May 13th, 2013 at 3:41 pm)

    Confronted with observation compared to thesis … Let’s hear Richard Feynman explain the scientific method:

    First, we guess the law, then we compute the consequences of the guess to see if law is right.
    If it is right, we see what it would imply, then we COMPARE those computation results to nature.
    (Or we say compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation to see if it works.)

    Pay attention Luke. This part is important. Read it as slowly as you need to comprehend it:

    “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is.

    It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.

    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw ]

    And so, we have a drought free Australia & NZ, with co2 levels at record breaking 400ppm.
    Obviously, carbon dioxide does not cause droughts.

    Unless Luke can produce the UN-IPCC climate science global computer models that predicted this?

    What is this alternative scientific method Luke claims to use to analyse this drought free climate that is “back?”

    UPDATE: It might have been dry in some parts of OZ very recently, but the rains are a-comin’!

  114. Luke May 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    Well Handjive – Feynman probably didn’t do physics with a pocket knife either. And setting yourself up with stupid hypotheses and dopey questions is also not a good idea.

    The UN-IPCC don’t have any computer models. But anyway – why would climate change modelling efforts model this particular drought would you think? More silliness as to not even knowing the fundamentals of anything on this topic.

    What an amazing mad post HJ – just head shakingly painful in the sheer intensity of its weirdness. If you want to have a go try much harder.

  115. handjive May 15, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    @Comment from: Luke May 15th, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Feynman probably didn’t do physics with a unicorn either. So what.
    I offer no hypothesis. Just facts.
    That co2 causes catastrophic global warming for the first time in our planet’s history IS the hypothesis.

    Got a problem with Joe Ludwig’s official press release? Contact details at link.
    Got a problem with ABC’s news service? Contact details at link.
    Of course you could rebut here. But you can’t.

    Dopey questions, says Luke? Not so dopey, as you could not answer them. How dopey are you?
    You could have wiped me with some of that “real climate science.” Just one link would do it.

    Here is some advice for the useful idiots of “settled climate science” like Luke (for nothing):
    What is NOT a good idea is NOT fact checking before you type something.

    “The UN-IPCC don’t have any computer models.”


    UN-IPCC AR4 Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
    Projections of Future Changes in Climate-

    Quote: “A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models.”

    link: [ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html ]

    ‘F’ for ‘Failure’ right there, Luke.

    Quote Luke: “But anyway – why would climate change modelling efforts model this particular drought would you think?”

    BARP. D’oh, I dunno Luke… fraudulent tax & trade system maybe? A re-distribution of wealth maybe?


    UN-IPCC/CSIRO tar wg2 2007:

    “Using a transient simulation with the NCAR CCMO GCM at coarse resolution (R15) (Meehl and Washington, 1996), Kothavala (1999) found for northeastern and southeastern Australia that the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicated longer and more severe droughts.

    Similar but less extreme results were found by Walsh et al. (2000) for [estimates of meteorological drought in Queensland, based on simulations with the CSIRO RCM at 60-km resolution, nested in the CSIRO Mk2 GCM.”

    *That’s right – the IPCC prediction for north-east Australia (Queensland) was less rainfall, more droughts, and a generally drier climate.

    In fact, the regional impact report speculates on the effect that “A change in climate toward drier conditions as a result of lower rainfall and higher evaporative demand” would have on Queensland.

    And what about the possibility of flooding caused by increased rainfall? Not one word.

    * http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/ipcc-prediction-for-queensland-less-rainfall-longer-droughts-drier-climate/


    Weird to people not even knowing the fundamentals of anything on this topic like Luke, facts to anyone who understand the scientific method.

  116. Luke May 15, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

    As I said – the UN IPCC don’t have any computer models. Are you actually deaf and blind too ! They may have reported the works of research units elsewhere but they are not theirs ! This is most important.

    But as for the simulations you quote – what period are they for? Do they say the all climate variability is suspended. NO !

    You are clueless. A nitwit. A goober. You have no idea what you are even reading. Your understanding is a trivialisation.

    Those simulations runs are forecasts for a particular year – they are climate runs. Not individual year forecasts and often for 2030, 2050 and 2070. And in the long run will probably be shown as correct. They do NOT say that flooding will NEVER occur again. If you doubt it correspond with the authors and ask for details on the GCM run outputs. Indeed another common finding would be that when rainfall occurs it will be more intense. And some evidence for that in Australia already.

    I can’t wipe you out with real science as you have asked questions something like “what’s the difference between a duck”. It’s nonsensical. Your answer would be 16.

    There’s stacks of evidence of CO2’s broad impact on forcing. Try PETM. Try some geological evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

    Handjive – I think we’ll need to call you handjob if you keep up your silliness.

  117. Luke May 15, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A hahahaha

  118. Debbie May 16, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    …..As I said – the UN IPCC don’t have any computer models. Are you actually deaf and blind too ! They may have reported the works of research units elsewhere but they are not theirs ! This is most important……
    So does that mean they use the work of others to influence far reaching global social policy, that they compile all this work in their reports….that they COMMISSION and PAY FOR this research …..BUT…..it’s not their personal work so therefore (presumably)….they can dictate far reaching global socoal policy related to Climate Change but not be held responsible or accountable for the consequences ???… because…
    “they are not theirs”…..?????????
    This is most important??????

  119. kuhnkat May 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm #


    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    What many people never realize, and Little Lukey won’t even begin to comprehend, is that EVEN IF THE EXPERIMENT OR OBSERVATION AGREES WITH THE HYPOTHESIS IT CAN STILL BE WRONG DUE TO UNKNOWNS, or just sloppy work!!!!!

  120. Luke May 16, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

    Debbie does her best confecting. Let’s make up some stories by Auntie Debs.

  121. Debbie May 16, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

    What story would that be Luke?

  122. Luke May 16, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Debs technique – keeping asking more questions. Try being genuine.

  123. hunter May 16, 2013 at 10:16 pm #

    Luke’s technique: ignore the questions and hope they really will shut down the skeptics.

  124. Luke May 17, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    Hunter’s technique – never EVER make a contribution

  125. hunter May 17, 2013 at 3:40 am #

    Luke’s reality: Thrashing away trying to keep up.

    Now what do coral atolls and the GBR have in common?
    Here is the summary, before they edited in a bunch of typical AGW back-filling:
    “The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.

    Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

    “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said.

    “Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.”

    The AGW hypesters have the gall to try and explain this away by calling a multi-decade survey “short term”.

    Not really surprising, but still annoying.

  126. hunter May 17, 2013 at 3:46 am #

    Luke’s reality: Thrashing away trying to keep up.

    Now what do coral atolls and the GBR have in common?
    Here is the summary, before they edited in a bunch of typical AGW back-filling:
    “The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.

    Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

    “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said.

    “Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.”

    The AGW hypesters have the gall to try and explain this away by calling a multi-decade survey “short term”.

    Not really surprising, but still annoying: The AGW beleivers still refuse to rexamine their assumptions and conclusions, no matter how much evidence invites them to do so.

  127. Luke May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am #

    You pig ignorant lazy dope – http://www.fm/news/kp/2010/jun10_3.htm

    As I said hunter you are just the biggest non-thinking stupid denialist of parrots. Polly wanna talk crap. Bone lazy as to not even do the most basic of checks. A TOTAL representation of the scientists. You’re a disgrace even to sceptics. Caught with your hand in the till . hahahahahaha

    stupid is as stupid does. As I said hunter – you don’t have the brains for this debate – you’re simply signed onto a side without any thinking as it sounds good, probably commensurate with red neck tea party views. Handjob shows the same syndrome. You don’t even know what you’re reading. Too dense.

  128. cinders May 17, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    Back to the topic, This year’s Federal budget includes a measure to ‘save’ the reef:
    “The implementation of the second phase of Caring for our Country by DSEWPaC and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), including a $200.0 million investment over five years that will continue to improve the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.”

    Will it be enough to satisfy the World Heritage Committee, or will Australia’s reputation be destroyed by having UNESCO declare that the Great Barrier Reef as “World Heritage in Danger” ?

  129. jennifer May 17, 2013 at 3:06 pm #

    Thanks for this info, Cinders. jen

  130. hunter May 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Partisans rationalizing away the news they don’t like is really all you have left, Luke.
    It is actually all you have ever had.
    The atolls are not drowning, the GBR is not dying this time, just like it has not died the other times your ilk have declared it dead or dying.
    The world is simply not coming to an end, no matter how much you wish.
    But at least it is clear that all you have is bluster.

  131. Luke May 17, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    But my friend you totally misrepresented their report. And I also didn’t say the reef was dead or dying.

    Are you some sort of serial liar? Seems all you have left is lies….

  132. hunter May 21, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    Since most other posters here have noticed that your arguments on this thread imply something other than what you now claim, I wonder if you will next decide there is a grand skeptic conspiracy to serially lie about you?
    Certainly you can tell the difference between difference of opinion and lie?
    Unless your definition of lie includes ‘disagree with Luke’?


  1. Jennifer Marohasy » Haven’t Lost Half of the Great Barrier Reef: Part 2, Junk Methodology | Cranky Old Crow - May 11, 2013

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » Haven’t Lost Half of the Great Barrier Reef: Part 2, Junk Methodology. […]

  2. Jennifer Marohasy » Havent Lost Half of the Great Barrier Reef … - May 12, 2013

    […] Indeed the claim that there has been a 50 per cent decline in coral cover at the Great Barrier Reef appears to be largely an artifice of the survey method …jennifermarohasy.com/…/havent-lost-half-of-the-great-barrier-… […]

  3. Jennifer Marohasy » The Virtual Impact of Cows on the Great Barrier Reef - August 29, 2013

    […] http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/05/havent-lost-half-of-the-great-barrier-reef-part-2-junk-methodolo… […]

Website by 46digital