Another survey that proves Australians still tick “yes” to motherhood statements. (Especially when there is no cost involved, and all choices are “Free”)
Survey shows Aussies’ love and concern for their Great Barrier Reef
A James Cook University researcher has found more than three quarters of Australians regard the Great Barrier Reef as part of their national identity and nearly 90 per cent believe it is under threat from climate change.
But what the media-release doesn’t say is that after 25 years of hearing how the climate apocalypse is coming, people think climate change is going to be slightly worse than beach litter.
In terms of extreme threats, 6% more people think Climate Change will be worse than flotsam and jetsam. As a multibillion dollar marketing campaign endorsed by the UN, WMO, IMF, and western media — that’s got to hurt. Climate change is not much more scary than litter, ships, or runaway fertilizer.
Figure 3: Respondent perceptions of threats to the Great Barrier Reef as scored on a 10-point scale (1=not at all threatening and 10=extremely threatening). The “Top 2%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a 9/10 or 10/10. The “Top 5%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a score of 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.
Australian government research at its best?
““We’ve described the personal concern and connection Australians have with the Great Barrier Reef “
Because no one has done that before, right.
How much do Australians care? Look right at the end of the press release:
– 44% of Australians have visited the Great Barrier Reef
So 56% of Australians have not. The PR team tries to reframe this statistic:
– Nearly half of the respondents (49%) had never been to the Great Barrier Reef but would like to at some stage.
Australians get their national identity from the Great Barrier Reef, but most people can’t be bothered to go see it, not even once in a life time. The message the researchers missed is that our national identity is probably based on something else entirely.
We sure hope there is something more substantial to Goldberg’s PhD.
REFERENCES
Jeremy Goldberg, , Nadine Marshall, , Alastair Birtles, , Peter Case, Erin Bohensky , Matt Curnock , Margaret Gooch Howard Parry-Husbands , Petina Pert , Renae Tobin , Christopher Villani & Bernard Visperas (2016) Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians Palgrave Communications 2, Article number: 15046 (2016) doi:10.1057/palcomms.2015.46
The greatest threat to the GBR is institutions like JCU that due to a steep decline in their basic scientific methods they spruik false claims based on a false hypothesis while ignoring the reality that continues to occur as nature doesn’t care about emotions.
JCU could’ve conferred on this with an excellent professor that helped put them on the academic map if they hadn’t been looking through green goggles and had the guts of an Easter egg.
422
And ever since we have paid these people a grand salary to live in paradise to tell us if we have a problem, guess what?
No matter how healthy, it will never be other than “It’s worse than we thought”.
381
People that have fallen for the CAGW cult will view anyone that disagrees with their doctrines as environmental miscreants or vandals when the exact opposite is true, a proper implementation of scientific scepticism will find the real problems that are damaging ecosystems without exception, while warmist styled investigations are instantly corrupted with political or peer pressured bias that produce results that offer obscure solutions to intangible scenarios while the real world is neglected.
262
Last year a Melbourne acquaintance said to me “It’s a pity the Barrier Reef’s been destroyed”. I’m a Queenslander. I said it hasn’t been destroyed. He went on to suggest it had been mostly destroyed. I again said no it hasn’t then I asked him where he had gotten his information. Predictably, it came from the ABC and the Guardian Online.
I said “Look, there must be dozens of tour operators etc who go out to the reef everyday. Why don’t we call one and ask them? He declined.
I also pointed out that the Federal Government spends millions of dollars on “saving the reef”. Why spend money on saving something that’s already been destroyed? Daft.
582
lloyd
Keeping viable the saying up here that
“You can tell a Victorian but you can’t tell them very much”
Exceptions made for the ROM’s et al down there
71
Another Ian @ #1.1.1.1.1
[ All those “1’s” are is like spelling “bananananas” which I am confident I can do but I don’t know when to stop! ]
As I am of Teutonic extraction circa 1850 in South Australia , although I wouldn’t want the South Australian aspect of my inheritance to be too widely published, and otherwise known a squareheads and obstinate ba****rds, your exclusion on myself from the run of the mill, standardized Victorians is generous in the extreme.
70
JCU – would this be the same people as :
http://www.joannenova.com.au/2014/11/study-namecalling-at-queensland-university/
/sarc
00
And AIMS
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/who-says-scientists-dont-do-it-to-get-rich-queensland-climate-expert-in-court-over-500k-in-false-expenses/
60
I have lived on the Sunshine Coast since 1979 and can assure anybody and everybody that anyone or anything that is or could be a potential threat to the reef,we the people of Queensland would”Crucify”anyone who could harm the reef.I travel to Cairns,Townsville,Airlie Beach and Gladstone,fairly regularly and can say that these”Numptys”have probably never even been to any part of the reef.
When people have to resort to telling”Lies”they lose their credibility and then you have to wonder why they have to resort to telling”Lies”
11
I watched a story about the great reefs of the world, which was focused primarily on the Great Barrier Reef, at a planetarium a couple of years ago. It was an AGW piece showing all kinds of degradation of the reef. Then came the big slip up. The narrator said that the GBR was built on the bones of multiple generations of ancient reefs. My mind suddenly jumped in a wait a minute moment. Extinction of reefs on that location has been going on for possibly millions of years. In other words, Mother Nature offs that reef on a regular basis. Whadda you know! A natural process. No assistance necessary from man…..
11
From the press release:
“The study forms part of a social and economic long-term monitoring program (SELTMP) for the Great Barrier Reef, established by JCU and CSIRO scientists, funded by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program.”
This part of the study of the reef seems to be about how the politics of research funding is penetrating the Australian psyche rather than studying the actual reef itself.
180
SELTMP has all the relevance, and intellectual/ scientific value of contemplating one’s navel.
160
Threats to the Barrier Reef come out every year, just before funding is allocated.
140
Sunscreen didn’t get a mention, yet according to research it is a confirmed coral bleacher.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/sunscreen-chemical-blamed-for-harm-to-coral-reefs/6876036
Then again, let’s say it did get listed and maybe 3% of those interviewed have heard/read of the devastation that one or more of the UV blockers in sunscreen is a killer, maybe 90% would have answered unsure, (the plotted nasty, black segment on the chart). So, based on public perception we don’t have to look any further at sunscreen and we can drop the silly idea that people visiting the reef should not wear sun protection and that the visitors are causing the observed, extensive damage.
As usual a survey doesn’t find results or evidence of cause/effect, it is just a measure of perception and is often misused and misinterpreted. The cause of the error in perception relates to media coverage being selective in topic and duration/frequency of coverage. In other words, if the surveyed item is not a media darling, the public won’t know about it, regardless of the damage/risk/benefit the surveyed item could otherwise present.
In short, don’t trust the media for all the facts and if it has to do with climate change or coral bleaching or sea levels or polar ice melting then you can be assured that the data is most probably biased.
310
Ian,
I see you got the same point as I, you obviously type faster than I and certainly typo less.
60
Some products are apparently ‘reef friendly’ or ‘reef-safe’, see http://www.discoverhawaiitours.com/blog/what-is-coral-reef-safe-sunscreen
80
They should certainly be BANNING the use of sunscreen for all visitors to the GBR until they know a lot more about the effects of sunscreens on coral.
Invoke the only thing the AGW cult have left to use…. “the precautionary principle”.
I wonder if a study has ever been done to see if die-backs are related to visitor numbers.
162
Andy,
In my experience the coral that surrounds the floating tourist platforms is generally in very good condition, notwithstanding that visitation levels are high. You see, the tourism industry has a vested interest in ensuring its product and investment is well managed. The tourism industry also pays a per capita charge to the Marine Park Authority via its Environment Management Charge (EMC)to help in the management of the reef.
Ditto commercial fishing.
The real problem from human use comes from un-regulated access – for example recreational fishing – in small boats. What happens in a lot of cases is the casual fishers run out far too much anchor chain on, or near, a reef. When the wind changes (or the tide) the boat swings and drags the chain over the reef cutting a great swathe of damage and destruction as it swings.
Hence permanent buoys for are much more environmentally benign, but cost the Marine Park Authority which gets no income from the casual unregulated small boat owner who recreationally fishes on the reef. And, amazingly, the Queensland Government does not require anglers to be licensed.
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/rules-regulations
101
The given technique for anglers anchoring on the reef is to use the rubble bottom.Anchoring on coral is not effective because it doesn’t offer a firm attachment for boats.Of course,there are idiots about who wreck coral by such methods- case of a few giving others a bad name.Using GPS in conjunction with a sounder/fish finder will assure the correct placement.
60
Sorry Sceptical Sam, you have that all wrong.
I used to be responsible for the Hook Island under water observatory. Sorry to disappoint you, but we had a permit to collect a limited amount of coral, to repopulate the coral beds outside the windows. With the huge population of fish these structures attract, & the fact that many fish eat coral polyps, this was a regular process.
The anchor chain story is just another greenie furphy. No one in small boats, or even reasonably large boats, anchors in coral with chain if avoidable. It can be very difficult, & even impossible to get chain up out of carol, when due to accidental dragging, you do get your chain involved with the stuff.
I sailed 53,000 nautical miles around the reef, & the Pacific islands over 8 years. I anchored in a lot of coral lagoons in that time. Having once lost an anchor & chain in rocks, I carried a scuba tank to allow me to go down & free the anchor should it become tangled in some obstruction. In 8 years of being anchored almost every night, in coral areas, I used this gear 4 times.
Another point, listening to an anchor chain dragging around over hard stuff, rock or coral is very nerve wracking. It makes you think your yacht is dragging the anchor, & heading for trouble. You NEVER willingly anchor in such situations.
Of course, some will use a light reef pick to hold the boat while fishing. These use a light rope, which is more likely damaged by coral, rather than damaging it.
190
Hasbeen,
Well, you’d be familiar with the historical damage at Manta Ray Bay then.
That’s one of the sites I’ve visited where I’ve observed significant reef damage due to irresponsible anchoring practices by casual small boat users of the site. It got so bad the Authority finally put in public mooring buoys to keep them off the reef.
Recreational anglers and their membership organisation (read “lobby”) in Queensland seek to push the blame for this damage onto others – sometimes onto bare-boat charter users, sometimes onto storm damage – as they resist any effort by government to set up a licensing system. What they ignore is the fact that the evidence of their damage is there for those who wish to see it.
A recreational fishing license system (similar to that which operates in Western Australia for example) would provide the means of directing information to them on how to better manage their impacts.
They’re not all a knowledgeable as you on best anchoring practices. But even then you admit: “In 8 years of being anchored almost every night, in coral areas, I used this gear 4 times” – which demonstrates that even the most experienced operator can still get caught and damage coral reef structures.
30
Sam Manta Ray Bay was very much a beat up, by the usual suspects. It was/is nothing special, & is only well known because of it’s proximity to Hayman, & because it is sheltered in the prevailing southeasters. It offers somewhere easy to take tourists.
Just to put your mind at rest about me damaging coral. Twice in the Solomon islands my anchor was snagged in WW11 wreckage, not yet corroded enough to break when yanked on. Once was in Honiara port, after a blow. My anchor was in so deep, I had to dig it out in 35 Ft of water.
The only time coral was involved was at Nuguria atoll, about 130 nautical miles north of Buka passage Bougainville. A huge broomie, about half the size of the old double decker busses had been displaced from the reef, in severe weather no doubt, & had rolled down into the deep sandy channel between 2 of the islands forming the atoll.
Not much life left apart from some soft coral, & a couple of enormous Morey eels, in a couple of cracks. Not being the heroic type, I did seriously consider letting them have that anchor. However it was my best CQR, & it was a very long way to anywhere I could replace it, so I did retrieve it. Those few minutes doing so were some of the most nervous of my life.
60
Mate,
I’m not one of your usual suspects. OK?
And it was not a beat up.
I saw it with my own eyes. Underwater.
The Marine Park Authority eventually put some public mooring buoys into position to help alleviate the damage being caused. The cost of those mooring buoys was paid for by the Australian taxpayer or from the charge levied on the Australian tourism industry through the EMC – but certainly it was not paid for by the Queensland recreational anglers who caused the damage.
Where I come from we have a name for those who pursue this type of cost shifting. Does the word “bludger” mean anything to you?. What do you call them in Queensland?
The greenies would like to have anchoring in that location, and many others on the Reef, banned. See how you’d like that.
You’d probably never see this on Jo’s site, so here’s a first:
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/6350
You can stick your head in the coral clinker for as long as you like, but it will serve no purpose other than giving the greenies a free kick.
20
Thanks Sam, after reading that paper I think I’m going blind.
10
Sceptical Sam said:
Too late. It’s happened:
http://onboard.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/17386/mantaray_bay_1.pdf
Now, why would that be?
30
Sceptical Sam
Another problem with small boat anglers is the following. I spend a lot of my time at a place on a coastal lake in Queensland where there are hundreds of black swans living and breeding (and pelicans). A friend of mine who is a full time wild life rescuer calls me sometimes to go out on the lake and its surrounds to help rescue swans that have either swallowed or been entangled in small anglers’ fishing line. These guys discard line, leave it behind somehow or snag it and just cut it off. This is very common and probably affects wild life on the reef as well. It is heartbreaking to have to pull swallowed line out of the swans’ stomachs or unwrap the line off swans that have their wings snagged to overhanging branches on the waters edge. We’ve even had to free swans that had become tied together by fishing line several times. We try to talk to the anglers but we don’t get a good response. The local councils ban motorised boats from the bird breeding areas but no one seems to police this ruling even tho there are signs up.
90
The GBR was on my bucket list, partially because my father spent 3 days floating on a raft during/after WWII’s battle of the Coral Sea. What a beautiful piece of the earth you have off your coast. The coral and sea life are magnificant! And the outback is magnificant and etc..
10
Yes it was, years ago.
See my post, No 23 on just this survey, & it’s findings.
30
The failure to mention sunscreen is the tip of the iceberg.
I can’t help wondering how different the survey results might have been if the public was better informed about the issues.
I fear that too many surveys, in all kinds of fields, just tap into widespread ignorance or the kind of sensationalised misinformation that the mainstream media is only too keen to produce. After all, how does the public form an opinion if not through the information fed to it by the media.
90
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Here in N America we’ve been told repeatedly by the MSM and various greenie groups that the Great Barrier Reef is 50% destroyed already, and that it’s going to get worse unless we pay the UN $100 billion/year.
I know people who planned to visit Oz but later decided against it because the GB Reef is already gone, so they’re travelling elsewhere.
Fun, huh?
300
What’s a few tourists to the economy when you can do faux research, bad stats and have life long funding from the gummint while living and working (sic) a lie?
120
And you do swimming and diving as it suits in lovely tropical waters. It’s a tough gig but someone’s got to do it.
60
I live next to the Coral Sea not that far from the Great Barrier Reef and the anecdotal evidence is that the GB Reef has never been as healthy and extensive as it is now in my lifetime. Years ago it was affected by a plague of Crown of Thorns starfish. Apparently this happens from time to time, but the reef recovered from this beautifully years ago, as it will again and again in the future when natural things like this occur on a cyclical basis. Most of the doom mongers have never been near it and wouldn’t have a clue about its actual state. Disappointingly for them it’s looking pristinely beautiful at the moment.
340
Exactly! I also spend a lot of time on the reef- and have done so- off and on for along time.Some consider tourism and recreational activities having some impact but it’s a big system.This survey is typical for this age- an age of nonsense and beat- ups. Most city greens would not have clue about the GBR.That also applies to almost everything else by the way.
190
Yeah, when I go to Melbourne and walk through Federation square it’s rare to do this without being lectured about the reef by some deluded activist, and the reef is their pet subject. With their ridiculous unreal claims about the GB Reef, I ask them if they’ve ever been there personally and they invariably say “no they haven’t”. And they always get really aggressive when I tell them the Reef is in great condition.
312
Robert R
You cannot hope to change or desist,
an environmental activist.
He will just argue and abuse you
for telling him a fact or two
161
I love the way they come up to you in the street and want to be super friendly and then when you quickly and easily blow holes in their argument they get super, super nasty. All there stuff about the GBReef and Bass Strait oil drilling is all just hot air and not caused by CO2, excuse the pun.
141
The only time I have snorkelled on the GBR, in early 2010, I found the reef to be largely grey and desolate, the occasional living branch-like coral and a couple of healthy brain coral specimens, and that was it. This was one of the tourist mooring points NE of Cairns. I heard a similar comment from another person on the boat.
It was absolutely nothing like the vibrant diversity of coral I recall seeing in the islands around PNG about 25 years earlier. I was disappointed the GBR was nowhere near as spectacular as what I had seen elsewhere, despite all the hype.
I admit this is merely one patch on one day and that doesn’t make a strong statistical basis for inferences.
But as long as we are recounting relevant stories, you can count this one as a witness of a barren GBR.
This still doesn’t explain the cause.
IIRC, cyclones and agricultural runoff were also the reasons given by a marine biology lecturer at JCU, who dismissed AGW as being insignificant in the mix. There was a video of this on YT once but sorry I cannot find it now.
43
Andrew,
What you described in your visit to the reef in 2010, sounds like the aftermath of a localised Crown of Thorns starfish attack in that area where you snorkelled. The starfish have always been a problem but are indeed a natural problem that all reefs have had to deal with on a ebb and flow basis over their entire evolution. Other reef animals, such as parrotfish, can also cause similar results.
The GBR Marine Park Authority does surveys of the reef. Since the beginning of this summer, apparently 210 reef surveys were conducted on 29 reefs within the Great Barrier Reef.most apparently in the Far Northern and Cairns–Cooktown areas, targeting reefs with ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. Coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish was recorded on 25 per cent of surveys. There was some coral bleaching (observed in only 12 per cent of the surveys). The incidence of bleaching was considered to be of low impact and therefore apparently minor.
Of course these natural problems, when they appear, stand out because you can’t see the whole reef if you are diving at a particular area that could be temporarily effected.
The point here is that these surveys back up the anecdotal evidence generally presented in this blog that the Barrier Reef is in great shape. It shows reef damage is isolated, has always been around from time to time and is due to natural causes and is not extensive as some protagonists would like everyone to think.
40
I noticed my comment received a bunch of downvotes, unlike any other comment in this thread.
That could be because I said some things which, in hindsight with additional research, turned out to be false. In the interests of reducing the amount of BS on the internet (because there’s plenty already) I hereby issue a retraction and correction to my earlier comment.
This afternoon I remembered the name of the guy at JCU who presented the lecture I was talking about above, so I’ve only now been able to find it on YT.
It was Peter Ridd, the lecture is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hovA-y8j2lE
(Note unfortunately the video lags behind the audio which by the end makes a difference of up to 15 seconds.)
Firstly it turned out Dr Ridd is a geophysicist, not a marine biologist, a mistaken assumption on my part.
Turns out he concluded agricultural runoff is NOT a significant threat to the GBR because it affects only the tiny fraction of the GBR that is near four major river mouths. So I got that part wrong.
My memory of cyclones being involved was not quite correct. The effect of cyclones would be to cloud the water and “choke” the corals by inhibiting photosynthesis. He shows the effect of strong wind events stirs up more sediment than river flood events. Still, this lasts only a few days, happens several times per year, and is clearly not enough to kill off the coral. So cyclones are actually not much of a threat and I also got that part wrong.
My memory of him downplaying global warming was correct, as he shows the long history of temperature change in the GBR area and concludes “threats from warming are likely to be less than first feared”.
One out of four is not a good success rate. My memory can be dodgy like that and I didn’t do the same level of fact checking on that comment as I normally do. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused.
Although I didn’t say anything about OA, it also turns out he concluded that ocean acidification “may be a big problem” to the GBR due to lab-based observations of calcification reduction. Based on other articles that have appeared on JN in recent years I think the word “may” has a lot of uncertainty around it with regards to adaptation and resilience. On the other hand this video is from 6 years ago so perhaps Dr Ridd could get in contact with Jo and give us an update on any more recent findings on OA and GBR health.
Due to recent unpleasant events regarding Bob Carter, it seems likely that Dr Ridd has been in contact with Jo at least once in the last two weeks. When Dr Ridd says in the video [~49:14] that some people will support “contrarian science” but don’t want to speak out publicly, the very public stand that Bob took immediately sprang to mind as an inspirational counter-example.
10
I have seen a few interviews with tourist boat operators from Cairns: things are much the same as three decades ago; the crown of thorns causes some damage which can be controlled to some extent, but not as bad as some would imply. The issue of agricultural run-off is being addressed actively, but most damage, albeit of a temporary nature, is caused by the annual two or three cyclones.
President Obama’s comment when he was in Brisbane about his grandchildren not being able to enjoy the reef seems to be more political than real. Did he bother to go and have a look at the reef?
252
That’s exact the kind of thing Obama says and the MSM believes every word.
I can’t wait for this president to leave office. Just one more year of this torture. Just one more year.
This is the worst President ever.
Move over Jimmy Carter, there’s a new kid in town.
232
Another up thumb Klem! Or should I say “Ditto”
10
No he didn’t.Why do these”Greenies”have to lie to “We the People”?
11
Klem #4 – Sad they didn’t do their caveat emptor with the due diligence it properly deserves. I mean, would you rely on the hearsay of a Green radical or the MSM to ‘inform’ you critically and dispassionately about the state of a house you wanted to buy, or a new car, let alone a box of chocolates or a bottle of wine?
50
Well, the reef is still there and in good shape.
As you can see, I live at the Southern tip of the GBR and I have a boat.
I’m 4 hours away from Lady Elliot Island, 5 hours away from Gladstone and Heron Island, the Bunker Group, and when time allows, travel to the Whitsundays, where I have spent many holidays.
In all the time I have spent on the reef, I have never seen any degradation in the coral or the fish life.
As for 50% gone, Pifff !
And BTW, I’m holding off the next ice age 16 cylinders at a time at 26 knots.
150
The greatest problem appears to be that sun creams, lotions, and ointments to protect humans from too much sun kill the coral that these people may wish to see.
So the 56% of people not going to visit the Great Barrier seem to be doing the right thing(?)
See http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/feb14/sunscreen.html and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2018159/European-Commission-Suntan-lotions-could-kill-colourful-corals.html
These days there are ‘reef friendly’ sunblock products — for a price.
60
So ‘reef-safe’ coral friendly’ product may not be so — see the comments to this product http://www.amazon.com/Reef-Biodegradable-Waterproof-Sunscreen-Lotion/dp/B007KBLJ8E
50
I have over time repeated here, perhaps ad nauseum for some, that in December 1986 the Hawke government appointed a partisan management to the wonderful CSIRO, with Neville Wran, National President of the by then Marxist “Labor Party”, as chairman.
Some time after that we saw a full front page headline, “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases!” This was a monstrous lie, and surely could not have come from the pen of any scientist, at the CSIRO or elsewhere. It came from the CSIRO’s publicity machine, wrongly extrapolating a CSIRO scientist’s work.
At the time there had been little research done on sources of greenhouse gases, so that lie stood for an awfully long time, and was taught in our schools and universities, and propagated by our media institutions. Far from leading, “Agriculture” is now down the list of sources of GHG.
“Agricultural runoff” is ranked here at No: 3. I now demand to see the research and the data and the quality of the data which support this accusation.
For 30 years and more agriculture in Australia has been a primary target for the Marxists, because it was the last sector of the Australian economy still dominated by small business capitalism. Conservative politicians and the farm lobby have been too dopey to comprehend it, even as the number of farmers has been halved in a rapidly growing economy.
230
Ted,
The nutrients thrown up by the sea, particularly from deep waves hitting the subsea cliff at the eastern edge of the reef are seen as GOOD. Nutrients that flow off the land are seen as BAD, this despite them certainly being coral nutrients.
Further, scares about coral bleaching are just hype. There is evidence from coral cores that bleaching has happened at various times in the past. It has nothing to do with air temperature but a lot to do with the absence of winds that would carry some heat away as well as mix heat deeper into the ocean.
(These comments are based on what a GBR marine biologist told me less than a week ago. He’s over 65 and has been in marine biology since before the scare stories started.)
Of course we don’t hear and read about this, not with out mainstream media.
121
Or an opinion by that famed snout-trougher Ova- Hugh whatsisname and his merry band of undergraduates who have a great time around Cape Bowling Green in their scuba clobber.More grants please.
50
ABC go to man for an expert opinion regarding the reef!
50
How about this substantial global Australian icon, genuine testament to ‘Australia’s warm environment’?
On the other hand, GBR is a Green propaganda flagship, much like the flourishing polar bear another well-hackneyed icon that betrays the user. Handy to the usual array of climatism fanatics precisely because “…56% of Australians have not” physically seen it, it provides a broad stage for pure clifi, half-truths and Hollywood films. In reality, the ‘truth’ in this instance requires some effort and digging, while the eco-fantastical is quivering Green blancmange served up by the uninvited shovel full.
As Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection Andrew Powell states (March 2014):
GBR ‘well-being’ depends on the poetic license conferred by the use of the word ‘implication’. Seen here for example, the end is nigh:
to,
Here, the ‘feel’ is quite different.
Same old ‘End-times’ versus huge natural variations in temperatures, salinity and sea level. The following highlights the sheer breadth of natural variation that eclipses the climatism of the moment.
100
GBR looking good.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/28/optimism-over-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-too-early-says-academic
Politicians have a blind spot on sun screens.
30
I’m more concerned that among the respondents, 40% either don’t know (25% – can it really be this high?) or marked 5/10 or less regarding the crown of thorns starfish as a danger to the reef after all of the disaster commentary seen about this over many years.
Similarly, how ignorant of Nature’s power are the 37% who marked 1-5/10 or ‘Don’t know’ (10%? Really?) that cyclones and tropical storms are death incarnate to coral reefs that are typically in shallow waters.
Has our general education level sunk so far that these (once) well-known NATURAL conditions are bad for the reefs? Perhaps a twitter or Facebook campaign is the only way to reach people nowadays but you cannot educate people 140 characters at a time.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/crown-of-thorns-starfish/history-of-outbreaks
60
‘Has our general education level sunk so far that these (once) well-known NATURAL conditions are bad for the reefs?’
Yes, brainwashing has achieved the desired outcome, ignorance is bliss as propaganda rules. Fear not, in the fullness of time a reeducation program will set things straight.
70
“nearly 90 per cent believe it is under threat from climate change.” This statement alone shows that there is still much more work to be done in the education of people in the scientific method. The CAGW/Warmist propaganda is relentless, 24/7, and government sponsored.
82
An exclusively tropical organism which is estimated to have survived through 240 million years of traumatic climate upheaval is threatened by a 0.34% increase in temperature from a baseline assumed to be 14 C ??
An exclusively marine organism threatened by rising sea levels ?
Dissolved ocean CO2 levels increasing with increasing sea temperature and or supposed acidity when basic chemistry shows the reverse to be true ?
The ocean has a limit on how much CO2 can be dissolved which is determined by temperature and pH while the atmosphere’s capacity is limited only by how much CO2 can be released.
Just how stupid do alarmists think people are ?
The real travesty of this survey indicates a significant number of people are at least aware of the single biggest threat to the reef – the Crown of Thorns Starfish – a threat identified more than 4 decades ago – and yet seem happy to do nothing to tip the balance in favour of the coral by undertaking eradication of the plague proportions of this predator found in the areas of greatest coral loss when a simple solution is available according to a recent University study.
Let’s get real – if we are truly concerned about the Great Barrier Reef let’s undertake Crown of Thorns Starfish population control and restore balance.
The University study found 25% increase in Coral in areas where the Crown of Thorns Starfish population was not in plague proportions versus up to 50% loss in areas where plague proportions existed.
If that isn’t a wake up call I don’t know what is.
172
Roscoe:
“Just how stupid do alarmists think people are ?”
They work on the Goebbels Principal – tell a big lie and tell it often. Or in their case tell lots of lies.
83
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Can’t get any bigger than something is wrong with the air conditioning system on our space ship and its all our fault.
51
But how do you control Crown Of Thorns starfish?
I did read something a couple of years back – apparently a single injection of bovine bile kills the buggers stone dead. Instantly.
Sounds terribly labour intensive though.
40
Not with the bots coming into service.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-starfish-killing-artificially-intelligent-robot-is-set-to-patrol-the-great-barrier-reef/
30
Thanks for linking to that, EG – I gave up on SciAm more than 10 years ago.
I’d be a bit leery of swimming around it, though.
Remember Asimov’s First Law of Robotics – ‘A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.’ Formulated in the 40s.
That law was violated in (from memory) the early 70s when a Japanese auto factory worker was fatally spot welded to a chassis. Ouch.
Cheers 🙂
60
Questionaires can be misleading and we see what people think rather than what they know. If asked what they’d actually donate money towards we might see more people refraining from trendy flock-following replies.
I would have to answer “don’t know” or a “1” to at least half of the list because I have not got the time to do any serious reading on the effects of shipping or tourism etc.
50
survey for the masses.
report for the stakeholders, which the masses should digest and reject!
29 Jan: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years
Renewable energy needs 75% more to halt global warming
That’s the conclusion of a report setting out the scale of the challenge facing policymakers as they look for ways to implement the Paris Agreement that in December set a framework for more than 195 nations to rein in greenhouse gases.
The findings from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmentalists, show that wind parks, solar farms and other alternatives to fossil fuels are already on course to get $6.9 trillion over the next 25 years through private investment spurred on by government support mechanisms. Another $5.2 trillion is needed to reach the United Nations goal of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) set out in the climate agreement…
While the figures are large, they’re not as eye-watering as the International Energy Agency’s projection that it’ll cost $13.5 trillion between now and 2030 for countries to implement their Paris pledges, and that an extra $3 billion on top of that will help meet the temperature target…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/paris-climate-deal-seen-costing-12-1-trillion-over-25-years
40
Meanwhile two of our states, South Australia and Tasmania, appear to be going down the financial tubes as a result of increasing prices and unreliability of their electicity supply.
I’d previously assumed that to be “renewable” something had first to be “available”. True?
Cheers,
Dave B
50
Makes me wonder if Lewandowsky or Cook had a hand in the planning of this survey? 😉
61
may it fail big-time:
29 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Low prices raise concerns for China carbon market
Seven pilot schemes are swamped with pollution permits, analysts say, boding ill for national roll-out of mammoth climate policy
The development of a national carbon market in China is perhaps the biggest single tool for slashing greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
According to UK envoy Sir David King, who recently returned from Beijing, it could ultimately link up with the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS).
But recent data from China’s seven regional pilots shows a surplus of allowances is depressing the carbon price – as happened in Europe. That makes it a weak signal for investment in clean technology.
The decisions the world’s top carbon polluter makes in the coming months about the design of a national market, due to open in 2017, are critical…
Officials have their eye on the biggest hook-up of all: EU and China…READ ON
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/29/low-prices-raise-concerns-for-china-carbon-market/
29 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: German CO2 brokers Advantag see 2015 revenues collapse by 99%
German carbon broker Advantag AG posted a stunning 99% drop in annual revenues last year, it said on Friday, reflecting the tough time faced by dealers in the European carbon market.
Advantag recorded turnover of €2.18 million in 2015 through trading 410,008 carbon units, a steep decrease from the €234 million it earned in 2014 from handling volume of more than 40 million…
The company added that for 2016 it would focus on attracting new customers while taking care of existing ones in order to reignite growth…
A number of European brokerages have stopped dealing in carbon in the past few years, in part due to low prices, an over-supply of allowances in the market, and as more companies opt to trade direct on exchange rather than through intermediaries.
http://carbon-pulse.com/14907/
40
Rosco @ #11,
Are you suggesting that GBR “authorities” are fighting the Crown of Thorns Starfish with one hand deliberately tied behind their backs, in order to maintain the scare, and ergo, the funding?
It would be awesome to be able to point to credible evidence of their inaction – maybe we could turn Australian’s concerns for the GBR into more urgent action on C of T S. Do you have such evidence?
50
I believe there is a program to control the starfish. Here’s a link.
Haven’t seen much since. Will ask and get back.
50
44% of Australians have visited the Great Barrier Reef
56% have not
That sounded off to me. So I searched for similar USA info.
72 percent of U.S. adults have never visited the Alamo
65 percent of U.S. adults have never visited the Grand Canyon
62 percent of U.S. adults have never visited the Statue of Liberty
61 percent of U.S. adults have never visited the Golden Gate Bridge
57 percent of U.S. adults have never visited the White House
I wonder if people are being truthful?
The GBR, like the White House for many, requires a major trip, a bit of cash, and not insignificant hassle to actually visit. One can see the White House or the Statue of Liberty without actually visiting. Seeing does not involve touching. The Great Barrier Reef is a bit different and, perhaps, floating over qualifies.
With the amount of video and photos available, could it be that people can and do become familiar with a place and substitute proxy experience for the real thing?
80
This could be proof that you are correct.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98195&page=1
80
John
I agree – 96% of visits to the GBR are day or part day trips
Day trips on boat
Island resorts
Scenic Flights etc
The areas most visited are:
The Cairns/Cooktown Management Area
The Cairns planning area
The Townsville / Whitsunday management area
The Whitsunday planning area
2014 Visitation figures here
A 1/2 day trip to Green Island with 20 minutes in a glass bottom boat 150 meters off the beach is counted as:
Also a 7 day trip for a honeymoon couple at Lizard Island or Hamilton Island counts as 14 day visits?
44% of Australians who claim they have visited the Great Barrier Reef are kidding themselves!
110
Good one Dave!
50
Dammmit Dave, whatever they’ve been to, it deserves to be saved.
60
“Great Barrier Reef an icon that half of Australia never visits. Climate change scary as “litter”
You can visit it right now:
A Closer Look at The Great Barrier Reef with google maps:
With these vibrant and stunning photos you don’t have to be a scuba diver—or even know how to swim—to explore and experience six of the ocean’s most incredible living coral reefs. Now, anyone can become the next virtual Jacques Cousteau and dive with sea turtles, fish and manta rays.
Whether you’re a marine biologist, an avid scuba diver or a landlocked landlubber, we encourage you to dive in and explore the ocean with Google Maps.
. . .
It’s not the end of the world, but you can see it from there!
80
OT, but Josh nails it again.. (see wuwt for full story)
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/green_limited_scr.jpg
42
Take a look at the people whose names appear on the paper – no evidence of any scientists but clear evidence of marketting people:
Jeremy Goldberg – PhD Candidate – College of Business, Law & Governance, James Cook University (CSIRO Land and Water)
Dr Alastair Birtles – Senior Lecturer, College of Business, Law & Governance, James Cook University
Dr Nadine Marshall – Senior Social Scientist, CSIRO Land and Water
Professor Peter Case – Professor of Management and Organization Studies, College of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University
Erin Bohensky – CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Townsville, Australia
Matt Curnock – CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Townsville, Australia
Margaret Gooch – Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia (The Cairns Institute, Cairns, Australia)
Howard Parry-Husbands – Pollinate, Sydney, Australia
Petina Pert – CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Cairns, Australia (James Cook University, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Cairns, Australia)
Renae Tobin – College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia (Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia)
Christopher Villani – Pollinate, Sydney, Australia
Bernard Visperas – Pollinate, Sydney, Australia
And who is Pollinate? Its website, http://pollinate.com.au/, says “We believe that all people are not the same and that by understanding influence we could create powerful change – for a brand, for a category and across society.” and later on that same page “Everything we do is geared towards understanding influence and how to harness the power of the most influential people.” It’s a market research company that tries to determine how to get support for an idea.
Is this what research has become?
152
“Is this what research has become?”
“Climate Change™” research.. yes, certainly.
112
Pollinate. How is that different than rape? Good name for them I guess.
62
Am spending tomorrow at Low Isles – my seventh visit..
I wonder if it will look any different to my first sighting of the coral there in 1958?
It had not changed by 2011.
100
That minuscule portion of The Reef is alive and well and thriving – despite the cane farmers of FNQ.
The cane farmers are so smart that they can quickly ascertain how daft the academics are.
00
Fifty years ago the Sunday press didn’t have Anthony Mundine to stir up when the news was quiet, so they often rolled out the “dying” Barrier Reef, usually over Crown of Thorns.
And guess what the press will be rolling out fifty years from now when news is quiet? Hint: it will be extremely large and “dying”.
60
“Hint: it will be extremely large and “dying”.”
The ABC ???
91
I used to run marine tourist operations in the Whitsundays. One operation with international 320 passenger high speed cats included a 90Ft pontoon, & a 60 Ft coral viewing vessel, styled as a submarine, permanently moored at Hardy reef, in the passage between Hook & Hardy reefs. Two staff lived in accommodation on the pontoon.
We averaged 800 tourists from the mainland & tourist islands a week through the facility, peaking at around 1200 a week.
The Hardy lagoon is over 7,000 acre, as is the area semi enclosed by Hook reef. I occasionally wonder how many bottles of suntan lotion it would take to effect this 14,000 acres, just a small dot in the total reef. When tides were suitable we could have 250 people walk on the coral flat, [mostly dead as they all are if exposed often], within a couple of hundred yards of our pontoon.
We hated this, as it involved considerable danger of minor coral cuts, which become infected almost instantly & required extra staff with safety boats, to maintain safety when tourists tried swimming in the 6 knot tides that run at springs, when the reef is exposed.
We were very happy when a marine biologist doing their doctorate started a research project to establish how much damage this walking on the reef was doing. We hoped it would be banned.
This lady was researching on the actual reef, rather than in little ponds, [like large fish tanks], back at AIMS or
James Cook, as most so called researches do. We were happy to help her with transport & accommodation when she required it.
She covered areas from Heron to Green island, & surveyed Hook reef, sampling much of the 20 miles of drying reef that enclosed Hook lagoon at low tide. Unfortunately she found that even the small area where we walked so many people, displayed no damage she could find. In fact, as it was on the leeward side of the lagoon during cyclones, it displayed more live coral. More exposed ares were swept clean in heavy weather.
Never saw or heard of this lady’s work being published. Wrong result probably.
241
Great Stuff Hasbeen,
It is a pleasure to read the views of some one who has worked on the Reef for years. Anything you say is worth the work of 20 marine scientists.
Indeed your story about your lady marine scientists reinforces all that we have heard about fossilised science in our institutions.
111
Hasbeen
Even though you haven’t seen it published if it made a PhD thesis it is published. And you can track such theses. I’m out of that field now but her name and uni would be a good start.
60
Another Ian,
I am interested to look,up the PhD thesis by my Uncle. He would have done it in the early 1950s at the University of London or is it the the London School of Economics.
How would I start to find that?
10
Nice to hear comments by someone who knows what they are talking about Hasbeen.
71
You are “no has been”, Hasbeen – you are spot on.
I too have studied reefs – mainly Miocene reefs in S. E Asia.
And I can assure you they are hardy beasts.
They are most vulnerable to sea level fall – this potentially results in clastic input from rivers – clastic input kills off reef growth.
Us Homo Sapiens cannot do that. Our anthropogenic input wrt to the GBR in Holocene time (now) is zero. Us Homo Sapiens are “not guilty” of damaging reefs, causing AGW etc etc.
61
Slightly off topic, but I was recently visiting Australia again after several years overseas. Drove round the back via the Hunter Valley wine country and into Singleton through the coal mines. When speaking with my sister several days later, she commented, “Oh, aren’t the coal mines dreadful. So ugly!” I couldn’t believe this came out of my sister’s mouth. She’d never said anything like this before. My point is that it seems if you can get enough people to think something horrible is occurring, groupthink then requires it to be a reality.
122
27 Jan: NYT: AP: Coal Projects Advance but Won’t Be Final Under Moratorium
U.S. officials on Wednesday cleared the way for a review of two mining projects that would dig up 644 million tons of coal from public lands, despite a recent government moratorium halting federal coal sales.
Wyoming, Montana and U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials approved moving forward with a multiyear evaluation of the projects located next to existing mines in the states’ Powder River Basin, the nation’s largest coal-producing region.
The Jan. 15 moratorium from the Obama administration allows coal sale applications to be reviewed but blocks their final approval pending a sweeping review of the federal coal program, expected to take three years.
Industry opponents had urged officials to block the applications…
While the administration has aired similar concerns, Wednesday’s vote indicates it remains unwilling for now to shut down a program that gives private companies cheap access to massive coal reserves in the Western U.S. and provides significant revenue to states…
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/01/27/us/ap-us-coal-moratorium.html?_r=0
obviously COP21 is being ignored:
29 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: France plans renewed climate diplomacy blitz to protect Paris deal
The top priority is maintaining what she (chief climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana) terms “political momentum”. Governments were closely involved in the build-up to Paris, but world leaders have short attention spans.
A stuttering global economy and fears of a Chinese financial meltdown are a “new element,” she says. “Frankly I don’t know what negative impact it will have.”…
Yet while the 32-page Paris text and an accompanying ‘decisions’ document offers a framework for global action, it omits to mention how many of its targets will be achieved…
India and China are unwilling to have their plans pulled apart by foreign powers and will likely oppose any move to give this transparency mechanism real teeth.
This will dominate a May session of UN talks in Bonn and November’s Marrakech summit. It needs intense “political mobilisation” to ensure it doesn’t get bogged down, says Tubiana.
“We will open discussions and then try and capture a landing zone,” she says, indicating her hectic travel schedule shows little signs of diminishing…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/27/france-plans-renewed-climate-diplomacy-blitz-protect-paris-deal/
30
Greens Co-Deputy Leader Larissa Waters
Says
Larissa Waters spent over $480,000 doing up her office in BRISBANE
Oh the Green Rage is so true to heart!
Larissa, it’s time you hopped off the gravy train of deceit!
100
While a year ago when I called to plead that he attack the people vilifying him instead of turning the other cheek, Tony Abbott’s office in Manly was positively Spartan.
Even I thought that as PM he should have run a bigger shopfront.
I am quite sure that it is because he did not take my advice that he got rolled. I suspect that even with hand delivery, he never saw my letter.
00
Incidentally, for the interest of people reading here, before Malcolm Turnbull was appointed to the shadow ministry, which greatly increased his workload, an email between 5am and 7 am would bring a personal reply within a few minutes.
00
Everyone should take a few minutes to check out earth.nullschool.net for fantastic images of gloabal weather stuff. Great graphics. If it strikes a chord then erl happ blog called reality is also very very cool IMHO.
40
Right now it doesn’t show anything like a cyclone at Australia NW. But both the North Pacific and North Atlantic look very lively indeed. Or maybe, if you like, deadly.
00
Climate change can indeed harm the GBR. The question though is how much climate change does it take to harm the GBR and is that degree of climate change likely, or even under way. And the answer is we have no way of predicting, but the observed record discourages such conclusions.
The poll is designed to allow relief for the untaught to express their concern about that which they do not understand. The result is predictable. The less informed one is the easier it is to be whipped up into a froth about nothing.
50
Yep, 10 thousand years ago, give or take a couple of thousands, where the reef is now was a range of low coastal hills, with not a fish or coral polyp to be seen.
It will be the same during the next glaciation, & there is not a damn thing we can do about it.
If there are still humans living at the time, I’ll bet there will be greenies stupid enough to be squawking about the dangers of global warming then too.
31
Speaking of ripping coral reefs apart..
http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/30/billionaire-coral-reef-destruction-yachting-club-allegedly-has-a-new-member-microsofts-tim-allen/#sthash.ynOLtoRD.dpbs
30
Jo,
You’re probably following the reef a whole lot more closely than I do. But among all the various scares about it that I’ve seen, nearly all of it looks like exaggeration for effect. The reef is going to be changed some by human activity as is everything around us. And I’m tired of being made out to be the bad guy just because I want what everyone else wants, to live my life as I see fit while taking reasonable precautions to protect our environment.
I live here too.
51
If by visiting the Reef, you mean seeing the actual barrier part and not a quick peek at some coral nest to a little island, then there is no way that 44% of Australians have done that. Probably less than a tenth of that.
There is a lot about how you ask a survey question.
Geoff.
20
Agree Geoff.
I am certain that 99.9% of Aussies do not have clue how large the area is.
10
Is 44% true? The GBR is a long way away from even Brisbane. I have done a day trip of the Whitsundays, and I have been to the Townsville aquarium. But I haven’t yet seen the reef. Have been gunna go for a long while. Still coming!
00
Been musing over these numbers for a bit.
Punters were asked to rate various threats from 1 to 10 with 9 being ‘OMG! OMG! WE ARE ALL GUNNA DIE!’ and 10 being unnatural silence as everyone is already dead.
Now personally when I am asked these sorts of questions I always tend towards the middle of the bell curve. Unless you are Spinal Tap there is nothing past 10 and there is nothing below 1
So, with ‘climate change’ sitting on top of the list with a 31% 10 vote, can we not conclude that rather then saying 31% of people think climate change is the ‘worse thing ever’, but more that people who do believe in climate change are more inclined to panic and play the total destruction card?
01
Nearly half of the respondents (49%) had never been to the Great Barrier Reef but would like to at some stage.
Here is another statistic with as much credence.
100% of me would like to wake up next to Kiera Knightly each morning.
01
So you think it’s OK to destroy the GDR because few visit there?
[Still endulging in juvenile logical fallacies, I see. Your comments are an intelligence free zone.] Fly
01