Naturally. It was always about Communist China and UN politics. The local pissants are in it for the money as well as the politics.

However, the inching-Left Coalition doesn't inspire confidence in its ability to stand up to the thugs - certainly not under the "leadership" of Morrison. Campbell Newman; John Ruddick : Nicole Flint and George Christiansen, probably just the start of the exodus from the Coalition.

The right - or what's left of it - has to start using fire against fire. People as accustomed to losing as are those of the Australian right need to realise that the point of politics is to win, not just to lose while being jolly good sports. The war is lost at the moment, and the bad guys have won.

Graham's link is paywalled. This is the actual AIMS report....

http://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2020-2021

Thanks mhaze for the link. I read it with interest.
We're told that the GBR "has experienced a low
disturbance year in 2021. There was no prolonged heat
stress, or any cyclones of note and decreased numbers
of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks."

It appears that the Reef has had a "breather." We're also
told -

"But the GBR remains exposed to the predicted consequences
of climate change including more severs cyclones and more
frequent and intense marine heatwaves."

And -

"The observed recovery has been seen previously and can be
reversed in a short amount of time."

AIMS has warned that the recovery that the GBR is
currently experiencing is likely to be short lived with
the "increasing prominence"of climate-related disturbances.

AIMS Chief Executive Paul Hardisty has said that "The biggest
risk to the reef going forward is climate change."

Research program leader Britta Schaffelke also confirmed
that the latest observations of the GBR did not change a grim
outlook which was delivered by the Institute in 2019.

"The outlook report assessed the future outlok for the
reef to be very poor."

So there we have it - who to believe? Marine scientists
or others. I guess only time will tell. All we can do is
encourage out governments to keep supporting the research.

Those graphs from the AIMS report make compelling reading. The problems cannot be global, they are local enough that even the whole reef is not affected equally. The story is one of local recovery which requires a healthy ecosystem.

Does anyone have access to the data to combine the three graphs and put a trendline through it? Might make a compelling picture for any who will listen to data anymore. (by eye, the reef is healthier than 35 years ago... but we shouldn't trust our eyes).

Regardless of what sort of condition it is in there are no reasons at all to continue trashing it.
The opposite really.
look after it.
Your grandkids might want to see it one day.

Sorry Graham, disagree. I believe this stinks to high heaven as cash for comment? And cofounded by the current video evidence and eyewitness accounts from other scientists who haven't been paid? It also stinks because a great wallop of taxpayer funds went directly to just the one "scientific" body?

In any event, three bleaching events in recent years and during a cyclical waning Phase, tell us this is both unprecedented and shouldn't be happening during said waning phase! Tells us that what is happening is due to denied climate change!

Denied due to overarching vested interest! Advised all you investors some time ago to get out of coal and into Lithium. And had you done so then? Your holdings would have quadrupled by now!

Deny all you will, but it'll do no good, given the days of coal/fossil fuels are seriously numbered! First of all, no new coal mine can get insurance nor investment backing! Nor has the government a mandate to invest the taxpayer dollar in any new coal mine nor new fossil-fueled power plant!

It is said, life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get and the same font of wisdom said and I quote, stupid is what stupid does! And judged on that last comment, an imbecile is somewhat smart than those who deny climate change or our best way to revere it without also tanking the economy! TBC.
Alan B.

Cont. If we would address climate change!? Then the way is with, cheaper than coal, MSR thorium! Or MSR nuclear waste burners, or some rational combination of both!

Given both cost far less than any other current energy source unless front-loaded with taxes that then cascade upwards to the end mug user! And as this stupidity personified occurs? Stymie all the massively increased productivity and monumental economic growth that would come with the above!

Cause the "geniuses" we trust with the decisions, have conflicting personal interests? Any other rational explanation to turn one back on power that costs less than a cent PKWH, escapes me! And in no way is it, we can't!

Just one of the spinoffs of MSR thorium is an annual multi-million dollar medical tourism, another is the production of ultra-cheap exportable hydrogen extracted from inexhaustible seawater! Another is the self-sufficient production of alternative fuels, also from seawater, that will also have a sizeable export market, given carbon neutrality! Even when we are fully electrified economy?

Our current debt burden tells us, we need to do all the above, if we would draw down our current debt level and rising, during this lifetime!
Alan B.

Foxy says "So there we have it - who to believe? Marine scientists
or others."
When the marine scientists get paid to declare the reef is in danger and would receive no more funds if the reef was just fine, then I would be skeptical about what they say. Additionally we can just use common sense. Do coral reefs grow in warm or cold temperatures? I suspect they prefer the warmth given they only exist in tropical and subtropical regions. Could a warmer world really be bad for coral reefs?

Remember the Great Barrier Reef Foundation being given a $444 million grant to help save the reef? At the time, it seemed an exercise in futility, given the the reef was said to be doomed due to "global warming".

Now the news is that the worst problems with the reef have been fixed.

Should we now ask for what remains of the grant money to be paid back to the taxpayer?

Rhys Jones,

This may help answer some of your questions regarding
coral reefs and temperatures:

http://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/coral-reefs-and-climate-change

Thank you, thank you, Graham Young.

For fifty years I have ben listening to the bleats of CSIRO "scientists" who endlessly resort to "reef alarmism" in order to get ever more public funds to expand their ideal lifestyle. First it was the Crown of Thorns which was going to destroy the reef unles millions were given to the "scientists" to stop it. Then came the spurious claim that silt from cane growing was going to destroy the reef. Lastly comes the rediculous claim that human induced global warming is going to put the last nail in the coffin.

Think about it. You have a select bunch of scientists living on remote islands on the barrier reef, or at least visiting these places for extended periods of time with everything, accommodation, food, boats, and fuel laid on by the taxpayer. Hopefully, the taxpayer does not also pay for the luau's and the female "researchers bikinis? What's the bet that any female undergrad invited to these idyllic locations had better be a size 6 and know that pleasing the professor might improve her examination score?

That is a lot of taxpayer funded La Dolca Vita to defend. No wonder Queensland University came down on Dr. Paul Ridd like a ton of bricks when he pointed out that the beach party was based upon spurious science. One wonders if the top leadership of QU were guests at the parties? At least Jeffrey Edelson did not ask the taxpayer to fund his and his cronies lifestyle.

It was probably the success of Australian "scientists" to scare monger the public into funding their idyllic lifestyle that gave the climate "scientists" the idea that they could do the same thing.

There are not many scientists with the integrity scientists are claimed to have !

I've worked with scientists for quite a few years.
The scientists I came to know were dedicated people,
not well paid, but determined to conduct and gather
research to further knowledge in their particular areas.
They work was intricate and detailed, and had to be
thoroughly tested through various means such as statistics
and data and their conclusions were formulated on the
evidence. Evidence was necessary to gain the respect of
their peers. Their reputations depended on it.

Of course, there probably were some louses amongst them
but they quickly got to be known amongst their peers
and their reputations were discredited or they were sacked
by the institutions for which they worked.

The report that Graham refers to is an annual feast. I linked to the most recent but the previous ones are also available online.

If you go back and look at the these earlier reports it's pretty much always the same. The report talks about how the reef is unexpectedly recovering from the last great disaster that had been declared. Each report talks about this reef having recovered x% or that one recovered y%.

But another salient feature of each report is the declaration that, while the reef is recovering, it really is doomed because of [insert your favourite bogey-man]. A constant feature is the claim that increased cyclone activity from climate change will doom the reef unless the valiant scientists save it. The likelihood of increased cyclone activity is never doubted, just stated as a given. But the trend for severe cyclone activity is for less not more and that's been the case for several decades now. It's very obvious that it is being used as an excuse to claim that, while things are improving, they'll get worse unless more funds are paid over.

Science used to be a calling. It was the search for the truth. But for too many these days, its a job, a career. The truth is secondary to the search for advancement, funding, salary and prestige. For every von Storch there's a Michael Mann. For every Pielke there's a Lowendowsky.

The purpose of organisations like AIMS isn't finding or communicating the truth. Their purpose is self-preservation and continued funding. If the reef's fine, there's no reason to fund AIMS. Therefore the reef will never be reported as fine.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Milton Friedman

A few facts:

The Australian Institute of Marine Science ( AIMS) is
a Commonwealth Statutory Authority -
(authorized by Parliament) and established by the
Australian Institute of Marine Science Act in 1972.

It is Australia's tropical marine research agency.

It plays a pivotal role in providing large-scale, long
term, and world class research that helps government,
industry, and the wider community to make informed
decisions about the management of Australia's marine
estate.

The commitment of the Australian Institute of Marine
Science was/is to undertake research that addresses
real needs and to provide impartial, authoritative advice
that supports both the protection and sustainable use of
our country's marine heritage now and into the future.

How this is done can be found at the following link:

http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/about.html

You can also read the history of the Australian Institute
of Marine Science - from "exploration to action"
at this link. It is quite interesting.

One wonders whether Foxy is a guest at some of these remote island "for scientists" only "research stations "in the Barrier Reef where scientists not lounging in their hammocks on the public dime are producing "scientific" papers along the lines of "How Climate Change is affecting the Breeding Cycle of the Green Spotted Sea Slug."

No wonder they needed to shut up Ridd.

"The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels. Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.

Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.

This data is good news. It could hardly be better. But somehow, our science organisations have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. How has this happened? One reason is that occasionally colossal amounts of coral are killed, mostly by cyclones, but also by crown of thorns starfish and bleaching. So the media, with its predilection for bad news, can be fed a regular diet of doom. Our scientists are always happy to oblige. The quiet recovery is generally downplayed or ignored."

It seems that a sighting of hundreds of bleached coal areas puts some
people into a panic.
But the b%^&*dy reef is some 2000km long.
A large amount of bleaching in the total may not be significant at all.
As an almost aside I have seen reports that global average temperature
has fallen a tiny little below the long term average line.
Don't get too excited about it as it might only last a few months.

If my pet theory is true it is to be expected that a slow decline will
set in for the next 300 years. This of course is for a better word the
the Maunder cycle which is a cycle know to exist for a couple thousand years.
It peaked, it is thought around the end of the 1990s, but as the cycle
period varies it is hard to be precise.
We might hopefully get a real indication in the next 20 years.
I apologise to anybody offended by my remarks that put some doubt
on co2 global warming as the end of the earth.

Are you lot right in the head?

The graphs clearly show just how much the reef had declined since 1985, something you guys and the likes of the miserable Jennifer Marohasy were claiming was a beat up and down to corrupt scientists. Now when the results show a degree of recovery you are all piling on again.

To Graham it is “extortion scam”.

To mhaze “the purpose of organisations like AIMS isn't finding or communicating the truth. Their purpose is self-preservation and continued funding. If the reef's fine, there's no reason to fund AIMS. Therefore the reef will never be reported as fine.”

To the simpering shadowminister: “The purpose of organisations like AIMS isn't finding or communicating the truth. Their purpose is self-preservation and continued funding. If the reef's fine, there's no reason to fund AIMS. Therefore the reef will never be reported as fine.”

But somehow you are prepared to comment on the uptick without ever acknowledging the severe downward trend which preceded it.