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.