On 31st January there was a piece in The Age titled 'Scientists worried by reef bleaching' quoting Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, with Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation suggesting the problem of bleaching that Ove was so worried about, could be fixed if only the Australian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
I received an email from a reader of this blog a couple of weeks ago pointing out that expert, and academic, Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg keeps changing his tune on global warming and its impact on the reef. He wrote:
"Within a little over a month, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's estimates have dropped from 50-60 percent to 1 percent of the reef bleached. That is simply an amazing change over a short period of time, particularly when you consider the amount of time required to do field work, analyse data etc. In the later article, Ove appears to be discrediting the scientists who made the initial estimates, when of course they were his!
I will be interested to see if Ove makes a statement also modiyfing his claims that the reef will be dead and barren within 30 to 50 years.
My feeling is that the initial claims were simply scaremongering and the disappointing thing is his willingness to go public with such claims with only preliminary data rather than any real published material."
Herald Sun Columnist Andrew Bolt also noticed the inconsistencies in the advice from Ove:
"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".
Click here to keep reading.
You don't need to be really clever to work out that global warming might not be so good for polar bears, but it is probably going to be OK for Nemo, as I've explained previously, click here.
But even the Australian Financial Review can't help but scaremonger. An article in the Review on Friday (BCA Warms to Climate Change Rethink, pg. 57) claimed a 1C temperature rise would result in 81 percent of the Great Barrier Reef bleaching. One degree was the extent of the temperature rise last year according to the Bureau of Meterology. The Review would have published the one degree temperature rise for last year, and is now publishing that a one degree rise will bleach most of the reef! How confused must editors and journalists be with all the global warming scaremongering?
Several commentators at this blog have been indignant about the letter from the 60 skeptics in which the scientists suggested there has been some exaggeration, and there could be more public consultation about climate change issues (see comments following the blog post here). They claim the letter ignores the science and seriousness of the issue and is just about playing politics. But these same commentators will ignore the more ridiculous claims from Ove and other 'believers' who spin stories that result in completely nonsense predictions.
On a brighter note, here is a little Nemo from The Great Barrier Reef:
Ian, I fund this blog myself. And its clear from my website who I work for, even where i was born.
... but my interest ultimately is in the evidence and the argument.
But, you, well, your interest is in what motivates others, while declaring nothing about yourself?
Yes - reading around your blog I see that is correct that you have not recently denied the existence or threat regarding climate change. Thank goodness for that - you have come up in my opinion as a result!
My interest in the motivations behind people comes from the observation of individuals who act as 'hired guns' for hidden industry groups. As a specialist on this type of behaviour during the 'tobacco wars', I have come to the conclusion that operating along these lines isn’t fair, useful or legal.
By the way, how are you funded (meant as an innocent question) or are you independently wealthy?
You miss represent my position entirely. And its different from Andrew Bolts.
I acknowledge that Co2 levels are increasingly and that we should do something about it. But I repeatedly suggest that this is much more a problem for the Arctic than the Reef.
And what ever motivates Lowe and Diamond - my concern is that they have the detail plain wrong. They seem to not be concerned with the detail -they get their facts plain wrong.
You seem to be concerned more with what you think motivates individuals, and how relatively important you consider those individuals - than with the evidence.
But just because facts are ignored - well it doesn't make them go away.
Not at all. I haven't started yet.
It would seem to me, however, that you don’t seem to vary your opinion even if there is overwhelming evidence is against the position you have taken. Let us explore your position on a topic to see how evidence based you are. I could pick water quality on the Great Barrier Reef or salinity in the Murray Darling (your “speciality” topics), but let’s pick climate change, seeing it seems on the ascendency among our brightest and most talented scientists (l’grand conspiracy). If they are all lying, then we need to expose them surely!
Let us take the position that you and Andrew Bolt have taken. You have stated in various ways that the science of climate change and its impacts on the biosphere and human society, is flawed and is a conspiracy by scientists to gain further funding. Some might say, ‘fair enough’. But to be fair, can you answer the following questions so I (we) can see that you are making your conclusions based on evidence and are fair dinkum.
First question: Could you restate for the record that you believe that climate change is a hoax and that the thousands of scientific studies that have been painstakingly done and published after anonymous review about climate change embody a conspiracy by scientists to gain further funding?
Second question: What is the evidence that you are using to come to these conclusions? You say that Andrew has pointed at the evidence – I am confused however. The more I look at the recent rant about the Queensland scientist and the Great Barrier Reef, the less I see what the evidence is that you and Andrew have based your conclusions on. Maybe I am missing something? So, here is the opportunity for us all - what is your hard evidence in this regard?
Thirdly, if the entire theory concerning climate change is supported by scientists who don’t believe it but are just doing so to get more grant money, then why are Diamond, Lowe, Flannery and Doherty (all celebrated scientists who are not longer running big labs and hence not in need of lots of research funding) still maintaining the conspiracy? Is this pride, is it greed, or is it just habit?
And, going back to l’grand conspiracy - what is the "glue" holding the broader conspiracy together? Why hasn't anyone with a scientific publication record in climate change had a moral dilemma and come back from the "dark side"? Surely they could make lots of money saying that climate change is not true and we dont have to do anything anymore. I can think of a few of my business friends who would find such a 'scientific' conclusion useful.
Interestingly Bolt and I make reference to the evidence. Doherty seems to have to appeal to the 'authority' of others to support his position... in particular Lowe, Flannery and Diamond. Diamond got it wrong in his book - as I explain in the above link with reference to the evidence.
And you, Ian, seem to have to suggest someone is paying me to write what I write ... is that because you have no credible argument?
A strange comment given that Nobel Laureate scientist Doherty refers to Diamond’s book only once in passing (in four pages of text)! What relevance does your comment have with respect to the main content or message of Doherty’s brilliant and balanced piece? Nothing, I suspect, rather than a rather poor attempt at distraction maybe?
By the way, I don’t see the same quality of sources underpinning much of what you write above. Take the primary source in your original reef piece by the Andrew Bolt. Bolt, a journalist who is discredited by many is neither scientist nor reef expert yet you use him like the gold standard of factuality. Two different standards perhaps, or is this yet another case of good ole deception to support your paid position as an industry advocate?