Here’s a different perspective—
Our contribution to global emissions is only 1.3% and any problem with the Reef from emissions must be caused by the major emitters. Stop the mistruths! It is absurd to suggest or imply that our modest contribution to global emissions can be causing any significant bleaching of the Reef. Lift your eyes from local politics and take a broader look. You’ll soon see who the culprits are.
Yes, China, India, Russia etc al. Further, I have been reading about decline of the Reef for most of my life, and if all the pessimism over the years was true it would be gone or dead by now. It isn’t. It has always recovered.

The GBR is affected by the effects of pollution from the whole planet. The local causes are recreational fishing, gold mining, mass tourism (Sunscreen lotions) & Military !
Bureaucracy is focussed on blaming farming which really has hardly any impact. Run-off from townships is a hundred times worse than that from farming.

How refreshing to see some common sense from Lytton among the usual troll hype. Peter Ridd, who is more highly qualified and experienced than any of the detractors, has pointed out " the type of coral that has exploded over the past few years is acropora, which is the most
susceptible to hot-water bleaching. How can we have record amounts of the type of coral that
should have been killed, again and again, from bleaching? The acropora takes five to 10
years to regrow if it is killed..."
Just another inconvenient truth that climate alarmists and fund seeking group-think scientists have no answer for.
Like Lytton, I've been hearing about threats to the GBR for most of my life but as Ridd says, it's doing fine.

Mikko2,

Record amounts of acropora aren’t the gotcha you think they are. They’re exactly what scientists expect after disturbances.

Acropora is fast-growing and can dominate after die-offs, but it’s also fragile and easily wiped out by the next bleaching, cyclone, or crown-of-thorns outbreak. That’s why AIMS calls the current high cover “volatile.”

It’s a temporary rebound, not evidence the Reef is “fine.”

The difference now isn’t whether coral can regrow at all, it’s that bleaching events now strike every 4-6 years - too soon for the reef to regain full resilience. That’s why long-term biodiversity and structural complexity are declining even when total cover looks healthy in some years.

Calling scientists “fund seeking” or “group-think” while ignoring peer-reviewed research doesn’t make Ridd’s interpretation more credible, it just sidesteps the fact that his conclusions are not supported by the broader marine science community.

WTF?

Mikko2 wants us to listen to the experts so let's have a look.

There are as many as 150 species of coral in the genus Acropora and as AIMS states: "the conditions that promoted recovery in different species of coral varied across the species."
Also "... larval connectivity by ocean currents and juvenile coral density were prominent drivers of recovery for some coral and not others. Other things like algae, parrotfish and wave effects had different effects depending on the coral."

"...the time need for coral to recover is specific to the habitat and the species.

“That means what is present or absent on a given reef system needs to be catalogued and incorporated into planning for its management under climate change."

There is no analysis of which of the 150 species of Acropora that Mikko2's expert is referring to or the effects on the other 450 or so species of coral.

If Mikko2's expert needs to be more specific if he wants us to think that he can seriously challenge AIMS findings.

Well if WTF and John D were half right maybe good 'ol slow-talkin' Obama better hurry up and get back to see the Reef before it disappears for good. Meanwhile they might like to troll the four or five other sites where the article has been published and add some of their "knowledge" to the debate which without exception generally has been in agreement including this in one North Queensland based site:
"Good story John, and yes the GBR is just one of the targets of climate alarmists whose regular predictions of impending doom due to CO2 emissions never eventuate so they just move the goal posts out a few more years. Geological records show sea levels in past eons were both much higher (marine fossils in Central Australia, limestone caves in former coral reefs hundreds of metres above current sea levels) and also much lower – down to the edge of the Continental Shelf off the current coastline....but hey, let’s scare the kiddies and the gullible while throwing $$ billions at futile attempts to solve a non-problem."