Bravo, Jennifer, it is iniquitous the way that some people want to ban these lovely chemicals. They are so good that it should be mandatory they be included with milk and other food products, so we can all get our fair share of them.
There is of course no link between the steadily increasing rate of cancer and these delicious dioxins and other pesticides.
Of course there is no link either with the fact that you are or were employed by the cane growers and are speaking out so courageously against any bans on pesticides.
You are known to have the interests of the population at heart and to stick up for them against any ill effects that agrifarming industries would have on them.

Sarnian, continuing in your vein, if we all did without agrifood like milk and sugar there would be no need for pesticides to raise and protect yields thereof, so it is high time we abolished all food production other than by use of chemicals.

Actually, Jen's piece is excellent and very well balanced. Duke's research is like that of so many "scientists" who to prove say the effects of acidification tip chunks of coral into tubs of hydrochloric or sulphuric acid, with very gratifying results.

[Deleted for abuse.]

As a PhD student doing GBR research I was initially very skeptical about this article. I have now had the opportunity to read the paper in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment and cannot find anything wrong with the analysis. It is amazing to me that the original work on mangroves used concentrations of diuron millions of times above those found in our rivers. I wonder how this got through the peer review process?

noosagirl, many of us are amazed at what gets through the peer review process.

All the peer review process is, is a review, it does not prove anything and does not even require reviewers to look at the same data the writers did - unless they really want to.

Some papers get approved within hours, which smacks of being set up before the event.

It just checks for "reasonableness" .. and how anyone can think the peer review process means anything more, is a constant source of amusement to many.

Scientists, like the rest of the community are just people with prejudices and faults and a desire to be liked and popular, part of a team, or herd and are certainly not saints. they also have mortgages to pay and kids to put through school, so of course are wary of upsetting or putting in danger their source or sources of income.

The days of accepting scientists are only capable of public good are gone, when organizations like CSIRO have to regularly beg for government funding, they are subject to its whims and desires, so the react accordingly.

The public are well aware of the foibles of science, since we have been forced to watch certain sciences go all political on us for some time now, to the point of publishing YouTube videos berating part of the community even.

Do we think they have political agenda, of course we do .. is the peer review process potentially political, of course it is?

Jennifer’s article is the only the tip of the iceberg regarding dubious science regarding the GBR. There have been various articles showing supposed decline of the GBR and almost all are remarkably weak. For example a paper in the leading journal Science, by Pandolfi and co-workers, claimed that the GBR was 28% of the way to ecological extinction. In my view this paper contained 4 major flaws each of which completely invalidated the analysis. Another recent paper by De’ath and co workers (2010) claims that reducing agricultural runoff will improve coral diversity by up to 33%. But this paper works on a completely unjustifiable comparison between data from reefs of the North and Southern GBR which were presumed to be identical before European settlement despite having totally different geographic settings. I could go on and list papers regarding sediment, calcification, fisheries and the effect of high temperature all of which have major problems.
We need a review of all this science. We need to employ a bunch of scientist whose sole aim is to challenge this work so that we can find out what is junk and what is solid.

Peter Ridd, JCU

Today I spent several hours looking at the website for the APVMA - thats the Commonweath body that regulates the use of pesticides. They have a recent report out on the impact of diuron on different organisms, including mangroves. APVMA also think the studies with mangroves are very muddled and inconclusive. I am now looking into the studies with seagrass and coral too. I am wondering what to believe. As Peter says, what is urgently needed is a group of independent scientists who are not paid just to find problems so they can keep their jobs. I grew up on a farm and know how important some chemicals are to agriculture. Nobody wants to have pesticides in our waterways, but we also need to know what are the real problems.

Jennifer you are an amazing Lady. You have real courage to stand where you are in UQ and say it the way it truly is.
The link following leads to enough evidence of real substance to indicate unprecedented sewage nutrient pollution proliferating algae is smothering seagrass while micro algae is even warming ocean water.
Scroll down especially to the link that mentions Bering Strait, see the algae associated with photosynthetic warmth streaming into the Arctic Ocean where ice is reportedly melting more than normal.
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/why-blame-farmers-and-co2
P.S.
I know I have posted this link before but now more notice may be taken about bona fide evidence of substance, now it is known other findings are a litany of false claims.

Sunscreen washed off tourists bodies does way more damage to the reef than farm run-off.
Just go out to where the tourist boats regularly tie up & you'll see nothing but sediment & dead coral. You always get told you should have been here yesterday when the see the disappointed faces.
A lot of hype about something you'll never get to see. I dived out of Cairns in the early 70's & found pristine reefs around Arlington & Pixie reefs & farmers used much stronger pesticides then. Now it's the other way round.

Don't forget the carbonic acid killing the GBR, litany of CO2 emissions propaganda.

It's amazing how criticism of one study on mangroves turns into a 'litany' of false claims (by inference just about all the research, it seems) on the Great Barrier Reef.

There is an organisation of disinterested scientists who do review the research, as Noosagirl has mentioned: the APVMA.

And lo and behold! It just so happens they doing a review on Diuron at the moment, what a coincidence. The submissions have been open for this review for years, but they are now closed. It doesn't look like Jennifer is referenced in the revised environment report:

http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/docs/diuron_environment.pdf

The review period was open since 2005 Jennifer, dragged your feet didn't you? What happened? Are now going to town on these guys because you didn't like the way it looked like it was going? Why couldn't you review these guys work or make a submission to the APVMA earlier?

Bugsy, you're always criticising papers because they're not peer reviewed. Now you get a peer reviewed paper and you insist it's not good enough because the author should have just made a non-peer reviewed submission to a government inquiry. Can you work out what your real position is and get back to us?

Noosagirl, would you mind posting links to the APVMA papers, and maybe some extracts? Sounds interesting, but helps for a discussion here to have more specific references.

Graham, I am not criticising Jennifer's paper for not being good enough. I have read it, it's fine, although it's quite specific to Norm Duke's work.

What I am wondering about is that the submissions pertaining to this review have been open for years, she could have made one at any time after 2005 until this year, but only now after the submissions were closed, she is now blogging on about how it's all crap.

Of course she has had plenty of time to make a submission peer reviewed or not. Did it look like the submission went the wrong way? Is that why this peer reviewed paper is only now coming out months after the environmental report has been published?

Why did Jennifer even bother, who paid for her time? I notice she is an adjunct research fellow at CQU, I know what adjunct means. It means unpaid by the university. What is her other (actual) job description? Who pays the bills?

Oh, and it's not a 'government inquiry' its a review of registration. All chemicals regulated by the APVMA undergo periodic review where they gather the science and evaluate it. How long should a submission period be open? I would have thought several years quite enough time.

The APVMA report on Diuron can be found at:

http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/current/diuron.php

There is a discussion of mangroves at page 43. It states:

"In conclusion while there is some evidence (based on a weak statistical correlation) from an earlier study indicating that diuron can be correlated with the dieback in Avicennia in the Pioneer River estuary, this was not supported by laboratory studies or subsequent observations."

"It was concluded that there are uncertainties and the science is incomplete. At this stage there are insufficient data to categorically state that diuron has affected mangroves at Mackay."

More details of the mangrove studies are later on at page 209.

I also Googled "mangroves and Diuron" and found newspaper reports in 2009 from Rockhampon where the UQ rearchers were saying they were sure this chemical had killed off the mangroves.

Trying to put all the relevant information together to reach a conclusion one way or the other is not at all straightforward. The APVMA report gives a lot of data but its not easy to put it all together to make conclusions. I really liked Jennifer's published paper because it shows an approach to analysis of information in a logical framework - she used something called "Hill's criteria of causation" It might be a good idea to use this for seagrass and corals too. I looked up "Hill's criteria" and discovered the method was devised by a famous epidemiologist in the UK - he used it in the 1960s to link smoking with lung cancer in the 1960s.

I think having a standard method like Hill' criteria is a lot better than people getting so emotional and personal with these issues.

Bugsy

I did help with a submission to the APVMA when I worked for Canegrowers… that was many years ago, perhaps in 2002, when the first call went out. The submission would have been made under the organisation’s name… not my own.

But sadly the APVMA couldn’t come to a straight forward conclusion with its first review because of the politics. And if Diuron is banned, which WWF seem confident is about to happen, it will be because of politics… not because Diuron has had a detrimental impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

As Munro Mortimer from the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology recently explained on ABC radio, “Some of the chemicals that have been banned in overseas countries particularly in Europe… some of these bans probably relate more to politics and popular perceptions rather than science. Because that is the way that these things tend to happen. Quite often governments respond to political pressure regardless of whether they are supported by science or not.”

My concern is with the corruption of science. I recognize, as Peter Ridd points out in an earlier comment, that this case study is but the tip of the iceberg.

And it was not easy getting this study published. The paper did not make it into the journals where Duke and Brodie publish because their peers made sure it was excluded. But we were persistent and the paper is perhaps now in a better journal as it turns out.

As regards how I pay the bills… well, last time I couldn’t pay a bill I sold my car. Life doesn’t have to be complicated. What is most important to me is that I have time to read and think and maybe next year someone will pay me to do just that

Thanks Jennifer, you must have a lot of cars.

I trust that you will be calling for a panel of experts to review the science on the GBR?

How can we ensure that it is non-political?

Diuron may be getting a bad rap, but if it does get deregistered it would be because it has no clear champion, and it looks like you are a bit late...

What would the consequences of deregistration Diuron be Jennifer? This is not clear to me.

That's a good idea Bugsy, to review the science of the GBR.
It is outrageous the GBR is not included in the Coral Triangle Initiative, the GBR is not scientifically managed, nor is the Coral Sea ecosystem on which indigenous people and wildlife depend.
JM's work may be just in time in many respects.
Never mind Diuron, this is also about a review of true science before scientists and science are disgraced any further.

The culture of the CSIRO has changed.It is no longer an independant scientific body.Anyone who wants to progress of get a job there these days must follow their agendas' and philosophies.It is corruption of science.

When we challenge the science I often hear,"Putting all this sh?t into the environment must be causing harm." These are subjective judgements and there are lots of chemicals like CO2 that we don't have enough evidence of their effects.Then we have the hypocracy of fracking where real damage is being done to farmland and the underground water supply.So the Govt allows this because they are cashed strapped and brings in CO2 tax on flimsy evidence.

Since 1970 the GBR was going to be destroyed by man.There are no indications that this is about to happen.Being alarmist is the best way to get funding.

Crying wolf can have many different consequences.
Destroying the whole GBR is akin to the wolf swallowing it's victim whole., not possible.
Sure the whole GBR will not be destroyed.
Damage and devastation to coral however is critically serious worldwide. Some coral is thriving, such as in areas where previously it was not thriving due (I think) to previous low supply of nutrients.
Reality is that coral on the GBR is now sometimes being smothered by invasive algae blooms, leading to false claim that 'coral bleaching' is being caused due to fossil fuel emissions.
Coral reef can regenerate but meantime there are consequences like bad word of mouth amongst tourists, with impact on coastal communities and the entire national tourism economy.
False 'scientific' obsession and claim about damage to mangroves has deflected attention away from seagrass being devastated by algae. and guess what, solutions are not therefore happening.
Further, cyclone Yasi is blamed by 'science' for recent seagrass loss and marine life mortality. However when Yasi was forming I was in Solomon Islands feeling the wind flowing over warm algae inundated lagoons, that wind gushing toward the Yasi low pressure system.
Increased algae proliferated by increased sewage with subsequent increased associated photosynthetic warmth should be expected, but 'science' is pointing the finger at CO2 emissions and propaganda need for an ETS and carbon tax.
And even further, 'science' is allowing a litany of false claims to also occur about sea level rise at Kiribati but there is no mention from science about islands that sank down during the 2007 Ranogga earthquake.
Science is being used right now today to install a new tax this week.
Now we will see if the Parliament system of Law itself is participating in the litany of lies.
It is inevitable the truth becomes known.
There is categorically a litany of false claims and that situation is allowing environment damage and socio-economic consequences to continue and worsen.

One of the remarkable things about this whole debate is that the agricultural industry organisations are now completely mute. They seem to have taken the view that it is hopeless to challenge the bad science regarding the GBR. There is now more than enough ammunition indicating that many of the keystone papers supposedly showing that the GBR is knackered are flawed. It is time for the agricultural organisations to push for a review and to get scientists employed to find flaws (if they exist)in all the major papers on the GBR. Only by challeging properly all this work can we get to the bottom of what is right and what is wrong.

Peter Ridd. JCU

Leaving Townsville are you Peter? I can't imagine it would be a comfortable place for someone given to your point of view, & preparedness to express it openly.

I was fighting this same rubbish back in the 80s, & I must have lost, as it does appear to get worse. I did find your organisation much better than the other 2. Some of the PhD students gave me hope, but I guess the reality of system got them sooner or later.

Hi Hasbeen,

Be not so pessimistic. I have little doubt that the tide wil turn in the next few years.

Peter Ridd. JCU

I don't think it's all that remarkable that the agricultural industry organisations are quiet at the moment Peter. You might believe that it's a case of throwing hands in the air and giving up, well possibly. But there is another possibility.

Just about everything the agricultural industry does is has a cost-risk/benefit analysis. There are always risks associated with any activity, including risks of doing nothing. So, what benefit will they receive by speaking up? Or perhaps funding a review, I'm all for impartial reviews of science, but what you are asking for (a review on all the GBR research) is no small task, and thus could prove relatively expensive, and what exactly will they get at the end of it? Will they 'get what they paid for'? You could sell it to the farmers that they are paying to have a solid basis for evidence based decision making, but there is a real risk that is not what they'll get. What could potentially happen is that they end up paying for ammunition against them, and if they even try and make sure that it 'goes their way', they'll leave themselves open to accusations of bias and dodgy science which is what the whole exercise was supposed to fix in the first place.

On a cost benefit basis they may have decided it's better to remain quiet and lose a toe than to pay someone to blow their foot off.

Or not, it's so hard to tell without talking to them. Have you asked them why they are so quiet?

Have you asked them why they are so quiet?
Bugsy,
Farmers are pragmatists, they couldn't be bothered to refuse to believe that this is evolution at work. They, unlike our academic screamers can see what's happening & that there's nothing to stop it.

How many remember the peer review that the IPCC censored out at the last minute from its 1995 Report, the treachery that led to the birth of THE CON OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES?

Was it not an IPCC lead author who inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in place of a consulting scientific reviewer approved statement, “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases... no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to man-made causes"?

Thanks to the socalled climate scientists who unquestionably accepted that IPCC propaganda (or should that be 'litany of false claims') , and despite the many brave scientists who went out of their way to point out that there ís no scientific evidence to justify such action, we are on the verge of being sentenced to many years of hard labour (pardon the pun) by way of the passage of the Carbon Tax Bills.

There has been a litany of false claims leading to the vote today on carbon tax, tricky claim of 'carbon pricing'. The false claims are incredible. Water cooling towers belching steam have often been shown visually in 'news' reports while the same news dialogue is about carbon emission.

The vote today is not really about false claims, it is about lies and deceit.

Today it will become clear whether or not the integrity of the Parliament of Australia has been compromised.

JF Aus, how can you compromise that which does not exist?

Good point Hasbeen.

Bravo Graham Young for posting this article. I don't necessarily agree with Marohasy, but I'm all for open discussion and debate. I've emailed WWF asking they respond to this article at this thread. We need to hear their perspective. I've also asked them for the best evidence of damage to the reef from agriculture.

I would like to see a debate on this topic on the ABC. Q&A would be a good forum but pick a Monday when Tony Jones is on vacation. He is too just too biased.

Ive looked at the report by the APVMA Noosagirl told us about. They have studies in there where birds were given food marinated in diuron.
The mangrove experiments demontrate that if you pour enough weedkiller over plants, they eventually keel over and die. If you breath in air with a high enough concentration of oxygen you too will die. Maybe we need an oxygen tax to make us all safe.

Well there is a good idea. An oxygen tax.
I am looking forward to what the WWF has got to say.

Information on some research from 2008 re water qaulity to the GBR: The work was called the Tully Water Quality Improvement plan. It was done by FJ Kroon of CSIRO on behalf of the commonwealth government, the Queensland government, and Terrain NRM. I trust that CSIRO is acceptable to all as a source of scientific work. The Tully/Hull/Murray rivers were listed By Great Barrier Marine Park Authority as being rivers that were potentially or actually a threat to the GBR.
The approach used was that GBRMPA set'Water Quality Objectives' that could be 'considered trigger values that would indicate a potential problem if exceeded'.
CSIRO then spent a vast amount of time and money measuring the quality of water that wasactually leaving the rivers.
The result was 'A comparison of inshore marine waters against available data on current water quality.....shows that the draft WQO's are met, except for chlorophyl-a'.
The listed concentrations of poisons against WQO showed that the worst was Diuron which reached just 11% of the WQO.
I find it hard to understand how people are able to totally ignore data such as that. But they do. All readers must NOT believe me. They must Google for the Tully WQIP and read for themselves.

I checked out the CSIRO report on the Tully region as suggested. Thanks for the link - very useful material.

I looked at the Executive Summary and saw that the observed value for diuron concentration was 0.011 micrograms per litre. The limit value is set as 1.0 mirograms per litre for inshore water quality. I think that makes the value just 1.1% (rather than 11%). The other pesticides are even lower.

A part of the relevant CSIRO report indicates to me that the report is grossly incomplete and misleading.
Samples were taken at mouth of estuary to marine waters 15 km offshore, which I suggest is akin to measuring rain cloud at 70,000 feet altitude. Rain cloud and rain is found near to ground, fresher water with bonded dissolved nutrients is found in alongshore current near to and against the coast.
Alongshore current concentrates fresher water in a narrow stream driven by prevailing wind against the coast, not 15 km offshore.
CSIRO has not identified and measured the whole catchment that in my opinion includes waters of the northerly flowing alongshore current that transports nutrients and likely some chemicals from upstream cities and towns to the south, including Sydney.
Due to tidal inflow associated nearby ocean is also catchment
Weed killer is used along the entire land catchment and often runs direct from road verging into table drains and creeks and rivers flowing into alongshore current waters.
Some toxic chemicals may bond to fresh water.
CSIRO claims the eastern Australia alongshore current is too insignificant to be named.
In my opinion fresher water and bonded nutrients in alongshore current is often drawn into estuaries by tide. Convection driven current in rivers can take an alongshore-sourced nutrient load far upriver.
The total nutrient load has to be measured and all sources of nutrients in the whole catchment have to be sourced and identified, but have not been.

Congratulations Jennifer on another courageous piece of work to return integrity to the 'science' on the GBR and in particular the effect our farmers are, or are not having.
I note that Prof. Peter Ridd has offered some suggestions for much needed work to be done and I agree wholeheartedly with him.
Sadly the canefarmers have little control over the research that is being done with their research dollars. Control is held by govt and a number of industry participants and research organisations.
It appears that research is only done to support policy of govt (alias WWF and Bob Brown/Green), using 'creative modelling' rather than scientific data.
Having attended an open lecture in Townsville by another JCU lecturer who used 'modelling' as the basis for his alarmist claims, I asked for the source data used in his modelling. Apparently such questions are not encouraged or welcome as the lecturer promptly shut down any further questions and adjourned for free drinks and eats...any wonder the students were unwilling to engage in the debate.
The only other question was asked by Peter Ridd who suggested a debate on the GBR which he was happy to participate in...the suggestion should have been welcomed, if the lecturer felt his 'modelling' was based on sound data...of course the suggestion and my subsequent support for it, was rejected.
While JCU has lecturers of the calibre and integrity of Peter Ridd and others like Jennifer Marohasy have the scientific data and the courage to use it truthfully, hope remains that the truth will out and govt policy may eventually follow.
Pity is that poor modelling is likely to create real havoc on the GBR through poor policy outcomes, while the WWF and their cronies ignore the plunder of valuable corals, etc. that is legally allowed by govt for international collectors and souvenir hunters...I wonder how much coral is damaged in the quest for the 'best' pieces?

Meg1 I agree completely with most of your post. In these days of low returns, & high cost of chemical inputs, fertilizers, pesticides & & herbicides, any cane farmer using so much that he had a large run off of them, from his farm would not be in the industry.

I also agree about the misdirection of research dollars, but the same goes for all primary industries efforts, since they were engulfed by the environment department, & is unlikely to change any time soon. Roll on the revolution.

However you demean your post with the last bit, the rant about coral collectors.

Your post leads one to believe that you have some knowledge of the reef. If so you must be aware that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of the thing. A little collecting of coral is hard to notice, doing negligible damage, even in a restricted area.

I find it similar to the rants from WWF complaining about damage from anchor chains.

For a few years I was responsible for the maintenance of the Hook Island underwater observatory. This had a shelf about 3 meters wide just below the windows. This was covered with attractive coral, to give the small colourful fish some shelter from predators, & to look nice.

We had to supplement this coral a couple of times a year, not because it did not survive there quite happily, but to replace what the parrot fish had eaten.

We would often get this coral from the Hook, Hardy & Line reef complex, as Hardy lagoon offered suitable anchorage in rough weather.

Continued

Continued.

To set the scale, Hardy lagoon is about 7500 acres in area, & the reef enclosing it is over 40 nautical miles in length. Hook is 15 N miles long, & Line is about 20. We could have gathered all we needed from about 50 metres of reef, but would usually select from a couple of hundred. With in a year you could not find where we had been. It would take hundreds of collectors, working all year to mark even just this small area of the reef.

In nice weather weather we would go to the Net, Knuckle Kennedy area, which offered better fishing, & an even greater area of coral.

It was on some of these trips that I employed the polynesian navigation method of finding reefs & atolls, by looking for the turquoise colour of the reef reflected in the cloud.

I love the reef, but I am afraid that there is more romantic garbage poured on it, than even the Tasmanian rainforest

Virtually every year several tropical cyclones cross the GBR leaving in their path thousands of hectares of coral reduced to rubble. Along the coast occasional severe floods devastate near-shore reefs. Even a heavy rain during a minus tide and kill large areas of exposed corals. In all these instances the corals recover within a few years.

The amount of corals harvested by collectors is trivial in comparison to these natural mortalities and recovery is equally rapid. Over 99% of the GBR reefs are never harvested and even on the few reefs where harvesting does take place over 99% of the corals are not harvested. The harvested corals are necessarily small sized colonies to suit aquariums. They provide beauty, interest and appreciation of nature for millions of people. They are also a valuable renewable resource contributing importantly to the local economy.

The idea that coral collecting is a problem and should be prohibited is sheer ignorance. It is more an exhibit of righteous self-stimulation than any genuine concern for the reef. This is attested by the reaction of the eco-saviours to any suggestion that the “problems” they profess to be so concerned about may not be so severe as they claim. They are not just uninterested. They are positively angry at any such suggestion.

If Jennifer’s study confirmed that the Diuron was indeed killing the mangroves it would be greeted with great interest and widespread media coverage. That it presents really good news for the health of the ecosystem is of no interest to the eco-saviours and if confronted by it, they will grasp even the flimsiest argument to dismiss it. Their real commitment is only to the problems, not to the environment.

Walter Starck

Jennifer's work is true science; that is, a treatment of the facts without advocacy; as the IAC audit of the IPCC found in 2010 nearly 50% of the IPCC 'science' is Green group sourced; the other 50% from the peer-review system was found to have standards of certainty which were misleading and inappropriate.

The fundamental point here is that a dominant Green based criteria has emerged which relegates human interest to a distant second to a concept of 'nature'; based on this criteria any human encroachment of nature is bad. This is irrational because nature is just the product of a multitude of processes, physical, chemical and radiative. The relevant criteria should be what is good for humanity; that is, in this instance and indeed most areas of conflict, does the use of chemicals which have a benefit to agriculture justify PROVEN negative effects to a part of nature such as the GBR?

Part of that analysis should consider the fact that economically the GBR brings in large amounts of tourist $s. Such an approach would get rid of the notion of externalities and issues as to whether Coase's Theorem is applicable to dealing with pollution issues.

Thank you for comments by both Hasbeen and Walter Stark on coral removal from the reef...apparently the effects of coral removal and sale overseas (which is what I referred to in my post, not local usage or removal for tourism, research, etc.) has the effect that farmers have on the reef...close to none!
Which leads me to the conclusion that govt and tourism should also come to...if the reef is so fragile and at risk from those dreaded farmers, then all activity should cease on the reef...including tourism...until the GBR has sufficiently recovered.
Hopefully you will have picked up on the outrageousness of this suggestion...
Then you may also realise the outrageousness of the position that farmers are constantly finding themselves in...and ask yourselves why the onus is constantly on them to argue the case with WWF, Bob Brown/Green, govt bureaucrats and the 'feel good' greenies (as opposed to the genuine conservationists) that have the ear of both govt and media?
If the modelling is flawed (and I believe there is no doubt it is when university lecturers refuse to divulge their sources or base data), then surely it is the role of peers and university boards to refute that modelling and ensure that students are taught accurate material and the same is provided for general information and subjected to adequate peer review?
Farmers provide funding for good research, they don't always get it...cane toads were one offering from CSIRO and guess who wears the blame for the effects of that fiasco.
Sooner or later, academics must also acknowledge accountability and speak out as Jennifer, Peter, Walter Stark and others do against the rubbish...and govts must act on real science, not emotional heresay...including on the subject of the 'baby corals' referred to by another JCU academic...no emotive language there much?
tbc...

It would be an ideal therefore that industries like tourism and farming that are so closely aligned (tourists like to eat local produce too...) should work better together instead of the present situation which sees many in tourism throwing their hands up at the so-called effects of canefarming on the reef and jumping on the farmer-bashing bandwagon...btw, I like to visit the reef and have done so for over 40 years.
I've listened to the same 'sky is falling' clap-trap for longer than that and have come to the conclusion that 10 years in the scientific arena must work like 'dog' years...becaue the decade before destruction has been a recurring threat and hasn't happened from any of the earlier threats either...
As for farmers advocacy for science based work to be funded...there should be a clearer understanding of the powerlessness of current farmers in the scheme of things; in numbers, in buying power (average incomes in many primary industries do not give a rate of return that is remotely adequate or fair), in legislative safeguards, in media or govt representation and in isolation from populated areas.
These facts are sadly reflected in the much higher suicide rates in rural areas as only one example of the feelings of frustration and desperation in farming families...they simply can't do it all, especially while being beaten about the head by every tin pot group as well as those who should be representing them.
I'd hate to think of how many futile submissions have been completed by farmers trying to make a case...to have the govt of the day follow the same flawed policy with no justification for doing so.

Meg1, I agree with you on almost all of that. I think it is most important that we those like Jenifer doing real research on real topics. Even more important is the publishing of all findings, not just those that suit an ideology.

A while back I was taking almost 50,000 people a year out to the reef. Due to having a fixed instillation, & the nature of tides, this meant that I had about 1000 a month walking on an area of drying reef, less than 60 Meters by 150 meters.

We all hated this, not because of any damage we could detect, but because of the amount of blood spilled by the tourists on these walking days. Coral is sharp, even if it is only really rubble.

I offered the use of our transport & facilities to all three Townsville organisations with reef interests. This offer was only taken up by some James Cook students, particularly PhD students, as they needed as much free help as they could get.

I do believe that the people who told me that most researchers rarely went out to the reef, preferring to use on shore tanks, due to a dislike of sea sickness, were only partially joking.

We were most disappointed when one of these students, after a month out there found no detectable difference between the area walked by our tourists, & the other 40 miles of drying reef of that lagoon.

We had been hoping for a damning finding of damage. We would have loved to be able to get walking on the reef banned, if only for the large savings we could have had, by not using so much Mercurochrome, the best stuff to prevent infection from coral cuts.

It is kind of funny that walking on the reef is still OK, but Mercurochrome is now banned.

Bugsy,

My suggestion is not a review which might look at both sides of the argument. It is to look for what is wrong (ONLY) with the case suggesting that the GBR is in trouble. The idea is to act like a defence lawyer in a court case. Our legal system relies on having a defence lawyer whose sole responsibility is to knock over the prosecution argument. We need something similar in science.

The farmers would have nothing to lose from this.

Peter Ridd JCU

Congratulations Jennifer again, the so called science is exposed for what it really is, corruption to support green labor planning and control polices with no foundation except bias to keep these publicly funded incompetent in a job,

I am more pessimistic than Peter Ridd. He wants a critical scientific analysis of the current publications so as to make the situation clearer. Nice idea of course, but The Tully WQIP that I referred to in an earlier post was clear - and by reputable scientists. The fact that they showed that the pesticide movements to the GBR were miles short of dangerous was totally ignored by all, especially politicians.
I see the biggest issue being that it does not matter what science is done that shows there are few problems, the religious Reefers will not take the slightest notice. This issue is hardly about science/facts anymore. We are talking a faith, a cult.
As was remarked about my earlier post, I have trouble doing arithmetic. The Diuron level was not, as I stated, 11% of the Quality Objective. It was only 1.1%. Sorry.

Peter Ridd is right, farmers would have nothing to fear from his suggested option. They would welcome the opportunity to have the truth about what they are doing see the light of day.
Dallas sums up the situation and the agenda pretty well, I'd say.
Unfortunately the so-called 'peak' primary industry bodies are too beholden to putting govt policy in place rather than representing their farmer's interests and arguing the case effectively.
It is left to individual farmers and the non-aligned farming groups to argue the case - against the tide of media, govt and those academics driven by a 'cash cow' mentality. The same mentality that has produced the 'Y2K' frenzy is now driving the 'global warming/climate change' agenda which is feeding off the alarmist modelling produced in the GBR debate.
As Kathleen Noonan (Courier Mail) reported some years ago, a Canegrowers official stated that publicly they (Canegrowers) must appear to oppose deregulation, while privately they would work to implement it...any subject, it seems has the same agenda.

Too bad farmers are paying them for effective representation.

In defence of farmers there are some questions:

Q. 1.
If Diuron has not caused the alleged damage, what is causing that damage?

Q.2.
On what scientific basis is the relevant nutrient load in GBR waters being sourced to come from farms, when the nutrient load from other sources such as southern city sewage has not been measured and sourced?

Silence can amount to a continuing litany of false claims.

Q.3.
To date on this thread there has been silence from scientists about southern city and town sewage nutrient pollution. Does anyone possess any evidence establishing city and town sewage nutrient pollution has not been feeding invasive algae that has been smothering or briefly inundating coral and seagrass in GBR and waters?

False claims are causing delay to solutions including for seafood protein deficiency malnutrition amongst indigenious Pacific Islands people. GBR waters are part of the SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem. Ocean ecosystem damage and fish stock devastation can no longer be denied or ignored or twisted out of context by further false claims.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf

While science grapple and perhaps take years with the science, there is dire urgent immediate need for immediate real aid for impacted islanders.

This science beat up is just a political distraction.

In terms of foreign trade in sugar the GBR is a well known trade off, a casualty.

Media concern highlighting the demise of the GBR is simply dramatic news/advertisment sales. No one in Canberra or Brisvegas really CARES about the GBR. All they have to do is APPEAR to care. They are great at that!

If the goofy political pundits who have condemned the GRB to extinction for the price of a rapidly dissolving Global Economic Fortune really wanted to save the GBR they would spend up and build wetlands. At least 10,000 1-2 acre Engineered wetlands at the outflow of all farms along the Qld coast.

Given the belly up of their favourite Global Financial blunders (which they are still hiding from we the public) these criminals could have built Reef saving wetlands as an investment worth 50 times more than their failed global junk bonds.

Queensland - welcome to the ship of chlordaned fools.

KAEP,

In my opinion the science you refer to is not science because of the litany of false claims, not just about Diuron.
For example where has the preposterous waffle come from about the entire GBR becoming extinct? All those reefs? Extinct?

The trade off appears to be credibility of scientists and science.

Not just the GBR is impacted, national fisheries are impacted too but not by the sugar industry.

The real problem is the gagging of marine damage incident evidence including autopsy results from abandoned of whale calves and whale stranding.

Consider reality. Farm run off and river outflow only occurs following rain, whereas city and town sewage is dumped daily.

The real polluter in the case of sewage nutrient pollution is the government, and government appears to be the primary source of research funding for the majority of scientists and science.

The litany of false science and serious consequences seem not duly considered.

For example, has sewage nutrient pollution proliferated micro ocean algae photosynthesis-linked warmth been measured and taken into account in AGW - ocean warming science?

Cane farmers are not the problem. Cane and other farmers are victims of the false claims. Focus must be on the source of the total load of nutrients. The whole water system of this planet requires critically urgent proper management without the litany of false claims.

JF Aus,

You are substantially correct.

However, do you understand the technicalities & role of Engineered Wetlands in solving Qld coastal problems?

Do you understand the severity of insect problems in Qld and the fact that chlordane is still used and is still affecting far more human issues than the barrier reef? If the whole Qld government was tested for Chlordane and related benzoid residues I think the issue might be clarified.

I love Queensland, but I wouldn't want to live there!

KAEP,

Yes I understand Engineered Wetlands but not just in solving coastal problems. There are massive problems inland. Plus, all rivers used to deliver natural nutrients and trace elements to the ocean ecosystem but big and small dams and cities and towns have reduced most or that. Now there are primarily just the massive loads of N&P going into food web ecosystem waters, daily.

There is need to think big, to think beyond Qld coast and the GBR.

I am aware of dengue fever in Qld these days but I know nothing about Chlordane, except that I don't believe it proliferates algae that is smothering vast areas of seagrass and sometimes to some extent GBR coral. Coral elsewhere in the world is significantly damaged or destroyed.

The litany of false claims has focused on mangroves with virtually no attention to seagrass being destroyed by sewage nutrient proliferated algae.

There is need for science to reach out beyond the litany of false claims. Maybe long goal terms for politicians that virtually blackmail scientists to think one way or the other would be a good start.

With the whole world ocean now nearly empty of available food, world food sustainability is at stake. Politicians best wake up very quickly