I suspect Mike Emslie and crew from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) didn’t report on the colourful bleaching at John Brewer Reef on 6th March 2022 because they didn’t see any. They were tasked with reporting on bleaching during this routine underwater survey of John Brewer Reef, but they didn’t. It was there in plain view, but only to someone who understands and cares about corals.
I suspect Neil Cantin and crew from AIMS reported that the corals were bleaching white at John Brewer Reef on 25th March 2022 because out an airplane window at 150 metres altitude it is possible to imagine anything. And after all, the purpose of the flyby was to highlight the importance of global action on climate change.
I suspect Peter Ridd keeps reposting the AIMS charts on Facebook suggesting that coral cover is increasing because they are convenient. He knows AIMS misleadingly reports that coral cover at John Brewer is just 21.8% by surveying only the perimeter of this reef. Their methodology is absurd, and it avoids those habitats with most coral cover including the reef crest. Yet he persists.
The experts – Peter Ridd, Neil Cantin and Mike Emslie – have absolutely no idea. No idea about the colour of the corals, and no idea whether the extent of coral cover is increasing or decreasing. But they are the ones in charge and with the money.
*********
The feature image at the top of this blog post shows me under the water at one of the coral reefs fringing Heron Island. The photograph was taken on 10th November 2021. I wasn’t talking to that fish.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Money is the sole motivator for this absurd abuse of science
Not everyone is motivated by money. I think that many people get into science because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Then that becomes all too hard, and so they try and stay relevant whichever way they can.
I worked very hard to support Peter Ridd through his court cases after he was sacked by James Cook University for being un-collegial. Sadly the court case never ended up being about ‘the science’ or the ‘Great Barrier Reef’. It ended up being about ‘freedom of speech’. That was Peter’s choice.
I personally don’t think an academic with technical expertise has as much a right to freedom of speech, as they have an obligation to report the facts.
I thought once the court case was over there would be an opportunity to focus on the science, and particularly the issue of quality assurance (QA) of Great Barrier Reef science.
Now that court case is over and Peter Ridd endlessly regurgitates nonsense statistic from the worst of the AIMS long term monitoring program. He knows it annoys me no end, yet he persists with it.
Thanks to you and Peter Ridd, Jen, these con artists have been forced to admit the truth.
Let’s hope a similar message on “climate change” eventually get through to these rorters of the public purse.
Hi guys, hate to dissapoint the optimists but there is absolutely no sign whatsoever that unveiling the truth that the reef is in great shape has had any impact on reforming AIMs, GBRMPA or JCU!!! Their marine staff still venture out joyfully in their large, hi-tech cruisers showing no sign whatsoever of guilt or concerns about their future directions. Two large bronze statues of two research leaders are about to be set up as underwater art somewhere off Townsville. They’ve been vetoed by various committees from various bays but word on the street is they might have a home off North Ward. There is also funding to rent a building overlooking Nelly Bay harbour to house tanks with underwater robots designed to care for the reef. A team of underwater robotics people will run the experiment. I think that the the deluge of shonky the planet is doomed messages has mobilised far too many people for politicians and government to give a rat’s.