From my observations the reef has simply been loved to death & over fishing is the nail in the coffin !
The increased acidity is world-wide caused !

I have it right, Hasbeen, and I know one reason why.

ABC/media failure to report relevant local knowledge evidence and also facts has even led to government searches being in the wrong direction for 9 people missing at sea that I am aware of. Eventually one boat missing from Shellharbour in 1984 was found where I said it would be off Newcastle, where I even chartered a plane and searched, whereas the government search went south to Gabo Island off Victoria. Government search and rescue procedure was later changed accordingly.

The southerly flowing ocean current is the East Australian Current which is a warm and very clear current usually situated OFFSHORE near the Continental Shelf. It sometimes spins into what are now described as 200 diameter eddies.

The current I am referring to in earlier comment in this thread is the longshore current that flows northward AGAINST the eastern coastline of Australia. This northerly flowing longshore current is driven by energy from waves driven by prevailing winds coming from the south and south east.
This alongshore current has significant energy capable of transporting heavy sand sediment, sand that jetty pump systems move from the south side of seaways to the north side.

Northerly moving longshore sand sediment eventually falls over the Continental Shelf at northern Fraser Island, while I have evidence of substance showing actual fresher water longshore surface current flow continues northward into the GBR lagoon. This eastern coast northerly longshore current flow cannot just stop, because of water coming behind the flow.
That longshore flow powers the east coast sediment dispersal system that includes dissolved nutrient pollution I have referred to in this thread.
http://www.malibumakos.com/currents-and-drafts/

The CSIRO has told me this longshore current is not significant enough to be named but I think otherwise because it is the current that drives east coast sediment dispersal. This longshore current links natural nutrient source estuaries, and now unfortunately human nutrient pollution and impact, including algae devastating seagrass, in Whitsunday - GBR waters.
http://www.seagrasswatch.org/whitsunday.html

The ABC is gagging science and knowledge, including for the Judiciary and toward solutions. Absolutely.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1

Sorry JF Aus, you are wrong. Even the old sailing directions give the facts. Hell even old Captain Cooks log gives details of his difficulty making headway north against the current. I have experienced over 4.5 knots south going between Port Stephens & Broken bay.

I don't know how much time you have spent sailing the coast, but I have 7 Hobarts 4 Sydney Brisbane, & 3 Brisbane Gladstone races as navigator, & over 40 private trips from Sydney to the reef, always against the south flowing current.

It does develop eddies, where it is south going inshore & north going well off shore. These can be 50 to 100 nautical miles long, but they always return south.

At my first Sydney Brisbane briefing, one of the experienced navigators told us to sail into every bay, & hug the beach to avoid this current. When asked how close inshore should we sail he said "If you can't hear the dogs barking at you, you're too far off shore". He proved totally correct.

Hasbeen, what current do you think takes sand northwards along the coast?
It is known about 500 cubic metres of sand goes northwards past the Gold Coast every year.
Take a look into the two relevant links I posted above. Both state northwards.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write;

"This case is probably as big a test of our legal system, as it is of academia. It will be interesting to see how the judge stands up to pressure to not rock the boat."

How bloody self serving is that? So if the decision doesn't go your way then it is the fault of a weak judge?

I would hope that on the most part the judge will ignore the chattering classes of people like yourself and deliver his judgement based on the law and the relative strength of the arguments from both parties.

SR,
Do you think Dr Ridd's case would be strong after not being able to present evidence of the science he spoke out about - that led to him being sacked ?