View Full Version : Sunday Mail Reef artical

09-04-2006, 12:25 PM
An interesting read today in the Sunday Mail Andrew Bolt column. This follows a similar artical in the herald sun. Maybe someone with more computer smarts than me can post both articles.



09-04-2006, 12:59 PM
It is a good read KC, though I'm still not sure about Andrew Bolt.
He plays well out on the right wing, a little too far some times. But he does have a lot of readers.
All that is needed is funding for a report to refute the alarmist reports. There is enough opposing theories, they just need to be presented to the public in a similar fashion to the green studies. Does anyone know if Russ Crowe is looking for a cause to champion, he has the profile, he lives near the coast at Nana Glen. :) cheers Steve.

09-04-2006, 01:31 PM
same old...same old...remember the huge panic..quick..we must stop the use of CFC's cos of a hole in the ozone layer...YAWN...everyone panics...costs everyone a fortune in altering to suit ...and what happens??? Hell..there is still a hole in the ozone layer and it just keeps getting smaller and then larger..a cyclical thing.

These green mobsters really have bugger all TRUE evidence..they rely on their other green mobsters to agree and start the ball rolling.....they are professors etc and other so called academics...what are they looking for???? Easy..money..someone to give them a grant.

09-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Stuck on a reef


How many times must the experts be wrong about Barrier Reef devastation before we disbelieve their scares?

HOW many times must the Great Barrier Reef "survive" before we figure it's not really dying?
Actually, the real question is a bit ruder.

As in: How many times can global-warming alarmists such as Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg be wrong about the reef's "devastation" before we learn to ignore their scares?

The trouble is our reef is so well-loved that green militants, desperate that we back their theory of man-made global warming, consider it the perfect hostage.

No month goes by without one screaming: "Freeze! Out of the car, or the reef gets it!"

And Hoegh-Guldberg, head of Queensland University's Centre for Marine Studies, has threatened us more often than most.

Just three months ago he was at it again, issuing a press release with a grim warning: High temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month".

Just four paragraphs on he upped the ante, warning that the warm seas "may result in greater damage" still -- to more than 60 per cent of the reef -- and we "have to rapidly reduce the rate of global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions."

You heard him, jerk. Get out of your car.

But as anyone who's seen the reef lately knows, it's still there and still beautiful.

Ask -- hey! -- Hoegh-Guldberg himself. He's just back from a trip out to the outer reef and reports that, um, the bleaching, er, has had, well, "quite a minimal impact", after all. In fact, just 1 per cent was affected.

And history tells us even that little bit will recover.

What history? The history of an earlier Hoegh-Guldberg scare.

In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg was commissioned by Greenpeace -- warning -- to find out why bits of the reef had just turned white.

Global warming was to blame, he concluded, which pleased Greenpeace awfully.

More, it moaned, and the professor obliged: Warming seas meant "coral reefs could be eliminated from most areas of the world by 2100".

Our own reef "looks to be under pressure within, say, the next 30 years".

Note well: I'm certain Hoegh-Guldberg believed this booga booga, based on his understanding of the science. Yet how lucky for him that he did.

He was promptly awarded the Eureka Prize for scientific research by the green-worshipping Australian Museum, and journalists who'd credulously reported his claims were shortlisted for top media awards.

Soon the ABC's 7.30 Report, to name one of many, was claiming the "once-spectacular reef" was being "bleached bone white" -- proving host Kerry O'Brien hadn't bought goggles and Speedos to check this unlikely claim with his own eyes.

Actually, I can't resist naming a second offender: The ABC's Four Corners added that "across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts".

Except, of course, our reef (and others) recovered from the bleaching of 1998, something which Hoegh-Guldberg conceded was "surprising". It recovered from the bleaching of 2002, as well, just as it's done after other bleachings in its immense life.

Not that this has stopped Hoegh-Guldberg from issuing yet more death notices.

Last November, for instance, he claimed the reef's coral could disappear within just 20 years. Last month he warned: "The climate is changing so quickly that coral reefs don't keep up."

I repeat: I'd agree Hoegh-Guldberg is honest and says all this because that's what the science tells him, and other scientists back him. But again he's found this doom-preaching has its perks. He now chairs a $20 million global warming study funded by the World Bank.

I asked another scientist, Dr Peter Ridd of James Cook University's department of physical sciences, if he'd noticed how the big institutional money seemed to go to the ones who say the scariest stuff on global warming.

"Yes," he said shortly.

But silly Ridd, formerly with the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, won't play by those rules.

He instead points out the "most of the supposed threats to the reef, whether from global warming or agricultural run-off, have in fact been grossly overstated". Most of the reef does not get bleached, and almost every bit that does recovers.

Boring, Peter. Boring.

Speaking about global warming preachers generally rather than Hoegh-Guldberg, Ridd even warns: "I think the media have been manipulated . . . and scientists are rapidly getting the same reputation as used-car salesmen and real estate agents."

Actually, Ridd is far too easy on the media. I suspect many journalists much prefer green hype to sober hope.

Ask Dr Ben McNeil, an oceanographer of the University of New South Wales, who with colleagues from CSIRO and AIMS calculated that global warming could in fact be good for coral reefs, because warmer water helped red algae calcify faster.

Even allowing for more acidic seas, says McNeil, "our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth". Fancy that. Not dying reefs, but growing. But only if we keep pumping out gas.

Such good news, yet only one daily newspaper in the country published it -- and then in just four paragraphs.

Still, I'm sure you've learned by now not to trust one more global warming scare. You need only take a Captain Cook at the reef to see why you're right to question even a professor as admired as Hoegh-Guldberg.

Speaking of the greater man, Prof Bob Carter of James Cook University's Marine Geophysical Laboratory, points out: "Should the ghost of Captain Cook sail north along the shelf again today . . . equipped with modern measuring equipment, he would be unable to detect any changes to the reef from when he first observed it in 1770."

Time the global warming scaremongers found some other hostage. They've squeezed this reef dry.

Join Andrew's forum on www.heraldsun.com.au/andrewbolt

09-04-2006, 02:16 PM
And yet another view. Sigh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fears fade on Barrier Reef bleaching disaster

Stephen Lunn

March 31, 2006

THE Great Barrier Reef is far more resilient to rising water temperatures than scientists feared, with less than 1 per cent of its coral affected by bleaching after the hot summer.
Scientists had predicted that as much as 60 per cent of the reef's coral might suffer bleaching, which occurs when warm temperatures rob the living coral of nutrition.

But professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, from the University of Queensland's Centre for Marine Studies, said yesterday that samples he had collected from the various parts of the reef showed the fears were unfounded.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's survey showed coral north of the Keppel Islands near Rockhampton had escaped bleaching, and less than 1 per cent of the outer reef had been affected.

"I was surprised about the fact that we had some bleaching within the coastal regions, but it wasn't as bad as we'd seen in the Keppel Islands (previously)," he told ABC TV.

"Probably about 1000sqkm of reef has experienced moderate to severe bleaching but, given the size of the Great Barrier Reef, this is quite a minimal impact."

In January, the professor's team at the University of Queensland had initially been concerned that the 2005-06 summer could be a repeat of 2001-02, when more than half the reef was bleached and between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the coral died.

The concern had arisen after above-average sea temperatures had been recorded through the summer months.

"This year we are worried because we have higher (temperature) anomalies which may result in greater damage," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said at the time.

But their concerns proved unfounded, confirming the views last month of scientist Peter Ridd, who said the Great Barrier Reef was one of the world's most resilient ecosystems.

"The only place that's probably better is Antarctica," said Dr Ridd, from Townsville's James Cook University.

A spokesman for conservation organisation WWF, Richard Leck, still offered a warning if ocean temperatures rose.

"By 2050, unless we build the resistance of the reef, we will be faced with a pretty diminished resource," Mr Leck said.

Any damage to the reef would hurt the economies of Queensland and Australia.

The reef is worth $5.8 billion to the national economy, employs more than 60,000 people and is visited by more than two million tourists each year.

Scientists are urging state and federal governments to reduce greenhouse emissions to avoid the bleaching that hit east Africa in 1998, when 50 per cent of its reefs were lost.

09-04-2006, 02:18 PM
Makes you wonder who is spruking the most bullsh!t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great Barrier Reef stands up to summer heat

PM - Thursday, 30 March , 2006 #18:42:00

Reporter: Sarah Clarke

MARK COLVIN: The exceptional heat of this summer has been worrying marine scientists on the Great Barrier Reef, but some of their fears have been eased by the latest studies.

Australia's been experiencing one of its hottest summers on record, and biologists had feared that the heat could damage up to 60 per cent of the Reef's coral.

But local researchers have now conducted one of the most extensive surveys of the region ever completed.

They've concluded that the coral is more resilient than they'd predicted.

Environment reporter Sarah Clarke.

SARAH CLARKE: After almost a fortnight at sea, the team of Australian scientists returned from one of the most comprehensive assessments of the Great Barrier Reef.

The group of eight researchers travelled 200 kilometres offshore from Mackay and headed north, studying the state of the coral and the extent of this year's bleaching event.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg led the scientific team.

OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG: Well, if you look at what was bleaching on the reef, as you went north of Mackay reports got less and less in terms of bleaching, and so the estimated region was probably about a thousand square kilometres of the reef having experienced moderate to severe bleaching.

But given the size of the Great Barrier Reef, that actually was quite a minimal impact compared to things like the event in 2002.

SARAH CLARKE: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg works for the Marine Studies Centre at the University of Queensland and is internationally respected for his research on coral reefs.

Despite earlier fears that Australia's hottest summer on record may cause a severe bleaching event, he says less than 1 per cent in the outer regions is affected. His concern now is whether or not this area will return to a healthy state.

OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG: Well, we'll have to see whether this patch of reef that's bleached will recover. Some reports coming from the Keppel Islands, for example, have been showing that there has been mortality - corals being pushed way beyond their sort of thermal limits - but as for the other areas we're probably pretty hopeful at this point that they will recover.

SARAH CLARKE: The Keppel Islands in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef have copped the worst of the bleaching, in both 1998 and 2002.

This year it didn't escape another bleaching event, and scientists are concerned its mortality is imminent.

Richard Leck from the environmental group the World Wide Fund for Nature says the huge loss in this region is an indication that as temperatures continue to rise, other coral reefs may take a similar path.

RICHARD LECK: The long-term projections say that there are going to be more severe events, on a more regular basis, going into the future, and by 2050, unless we build the resilience of the reef, we could be faced with a denuded ecosystem.

MARK COLVIN: Richard Leck from the international conservation organisation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, ending that report from Sarah Clarke.

09-04-2006, 10:34 PM


10-04-2006, 10:38 AM
amazing isnt it whilst u guys are quite willing to refute green propaganda with regard to the reef u swallow it hook line and sinker when it comes to profishing issues. mmmmmmmm maybe all u believe isnt so.

10-04-2006, 12:03 PM

Seriously - Andrew Boult !!!

I think you could latch on to the offerings of better opinions in the mainstream media [smiley=dunce.gif]

10-04-2006, 03:46 PM
Hi Bugman

Are you saying that you don't believe the article because of its association with Andrew Bolt? What about when the same information is reported by Sarah Clarke or Atephen Lunn?

Is it the message or the story teller you don't believe?

10-04-2006, 04:01 PM
Hi Waldo,

be interested in what anti pro fishing propoganda you think we have swalllowed. TFPQ supports commercial fishing in MOST instances. We have and are likely to continue to have problems with only 3 sectors.
Inshore beam and otter trawl, due to bycatch issues which, despite great leaps and the efforts of many, remains a very destructive fishery. By catch from inshore trawl also impacts on commercial fishing for finfish species.

Commercial exploitation of billfish. Very low yield commercial fishery but extremely important to recreational fishing.

Export driven fisheries which deny access for domestic consumers due to international price. Can't fix this. It just economics, but even your own peak bodies understand that export fisheries are a PR problem while consumers have to buy meekong river catfish!

Waldo TFPQ recognises the need for ongoing and sustainable commercial fisheries. Everyone deserves the right to be able to buy "our" fish in "our" country, after all it is the citizens who ultimately "own" the fish. Not the recs, pros or the Government.

& Bret,

As this piece points out, there are no other "better opinions in the mainstream media".....that is the purpose of the article. Which parts of what he has said, after cutting through the retoric, don't you agree with??

11-04-2006, 09:42 AM

I read Andrew Bolt's column regularly. I find it helps keep my quota of "right wing radicals" in check ;)

News Limited wanted a right wing opinionist. They MADE Andrew into a big thing. They gave him license to be as over the top right wing as he wanted - make controversey - go against the grain of common thinking.

I take everything he writes with a grain of salt and a smile.


11-04-2006, 12:45 PM
Carefull bugman.

You run the risk of being accused of being "one-eyed" and not open to alternate views that don't fit a preconceived opinion. ;D

03-05-2006, 02:06 PM
;D ;D ;D make ya think doesn't it ....... few years back not a scientist to be found say anything except what the geens scripted....... one election , a few votes...... how ya going guys, dont the reef look great, maybe not as bad as we thought, ................... wonder who paid for these latest studies?

the world turns.