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.