The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[GordMay]

A dredging ship at work in Port Philip Bay, Australia, in 2005.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

As a Science teacher and someone who has been snorkelling and living around the GBR for almost 35 years, this "debate" is worrying.

It is sad that people can decide to ignore really clever science undertaken by people with years of high level training on the basis of their own very poorly researched beliefs. We have the same with anti-vaxxers, raiki therapists, chiropractors who treat athsma and more.

If my car is not working I take it to a mechanic. The mechanic has done years of training and whilst sometimes I can understand some of what they say, and can strip an outboard to the crankcase, I defer to the knowledge of the well trained. If a am sick I defer to the doctor, who has undertaken at least 7 years of training. They may get something wrong sometimes but they are much more likely to be correct than me.

So why anyone would expect Trip Advisor or a single scientist to be a better indicator of reef health than hundreds of reef scientists is boggling for me. Would anyone truly say they know more than hundreds of mechanics when talking about cars, or hundreds of doctors when talking about health? Why is it okay for, say, pressure welders to deserve consideration for their skills but not scientists.

The scientists I know are hard working and play hard with each other. They shoot down problems in each others work and are quick to point out inconsistencies and problems. I have attended talks where the audience is quick to ensure that the orator is given no opportunity to include flawed or dodgy data. If you think there can be long lived conspiracies you don't know how science works. The data in the end always wins out. Read about Marshall and hectopylori, or plate tectonics, or science history in general. The data wins out in the end - it may take a decade but it gets there. The problem is that reef scientists have been getting more data saying the same thing for more than two decades now.

Sadly, my small experience seems to back up what I read. I loved the reef snorkelling I did in the 80s, the 90s were fun but when we went back in 2014 I almost cried in my facemask. Maureens was bulldozed and the plates were gone, Manta Ray the same. How anyone can say the reef is as good as it used to be blows me away.

For those of us who have spent years getting a trade, or gaining qualifications, remember that the reef scientists deserve the same respect in their field as you want in yours. Why is it okay to impugn the motives of scientists as a whole?

cheers

Phil

It's generally NOT okay to impugn the motives of scientists as a whole, but proper scientific scrutiny, critique, and debate is not only okay but required. As is questioning institutional bias when an entire field of complex science has been so thoroughly politicized.

It's not a question of endorsing or rejecting the opinion of a single scientist, but one who "leads the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia and has authored over 100 scientific papers."

https://principia-scientific.org/sci...eef-fake-news/

Besides, it's not just Ridd's criticism of the conclusions that have been drawn about the demise of the GBR, but about the scientific method and peer review process that has led to such conclusions -- in climate science, biomeds, and many other scientific fields. (see same link above). It's not just about differences over expert opinions, but questions over the trustworthiness of the methodologies being utilized to collect, analyze, and draw conclusions from the data.

There have also been comprehensive surveys that have been done that completely refute the conclusions that 90%-plus of the GBR has died. Here's one from 2016:

https://principia-scientific.org/sho...eef-just-fine/

There seems to be some scientific consensus, however, that the GBR faces a number of human & natural threats, in addition to warming waters from AGW. Yet all we mostly hear & read from the media is that it's all about climate change and it's all our fault. This seems patently untrue, but how much AGW is in fact affecting the reef is the primary debate, even though addressing run-off and other human-caused factors seems easier to address. But even as a science teacher and therefore more likely better versed in the subject than most, how much of your information is coming directly from primary scientific sources as opposed to second-hand and often biased media? After all, even a far less consequential issue over dredging a busy port facility is apparently not immune from politically motivated manipulation & deception.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A dredging ship at work in Port Philip Bay, Australia, in 2005.

Looks less like coal and more like naturally occurring sediment being moved from one place to another. Ugly diesel smoke coming out of the ship's smokestack though. Have you sent it in to The Guardian yet? Maybe they can use it for another article that also has nothing to do with the subject matter they're writing about? You know, the diesel smoke and all . . . .

[Lake-Effect]

It's not toxic waste, but sediment dumping isn't exactly benign either. There's still problems with other sources of sediment as well.



Idea: use the dredged sediment to fill some of these.




The coal hoppers come back empty anyway. Might as well take advantage of them.

[GordMay]

... It's not a question of endorsing or rejecting the opinion of a single scientist, but one who "leads the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia and has authored over 100 scientific papers."
https://principia-scientific.org/sci...eef-fake-news/ ...

Peter Ridd’s piece in PSI is NOT a scientific paper, but a reiteration of his character assassination of his former colleagues and defamation of JCU, and, perhaps, a preview of his law suit argument, against them.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes lunatic fringe views, and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, the alleged fabrications of climate scientists, and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.” PSI is an organisation too fringe even for Lord Monckton & Anthony Watts.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Peter Ridd’s piece in PSI is NOT a scientific paper, but a reiteration of his character assassination of his former colleagues and defamation of JCU, and, perhaps, a preview of his law suit argument, against them.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes lunatic fringe views, and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, the alleged fabrications of climate scientists, and that childhood vaccines were “one of the largest most evil lies in history.” PSI is an organisation too fringe even for Lord Monckton & Anthony Watts.

Never claimed Ridd's PSI piece WAS a scientific paper. More like an opinion piece, and one which he is entitled to make, whether disagreeable to former colleagues at JCU or not. I also didn't read anything that amounted to "character assassination" but maybe that's just a matter of semantics.

I also didn't cite Ridd's piece because it appeared in PSI, an organization I know nothing about. I'm interested in Ridd's opinion as a credentialed expert in the science surrounding the GBR, and could care less what other opinions the publication itself happens to hold. For all we know, Ridd's been ostracized from publishing in mainstream outlets, and so PSI was his only choice. I don't know, so am not prepared to assume he necessarily endorses the views of a publication simply because it's willing to publish his views. Kindly advise if I am mistaken.

Do you actually know Ridd's views on childhood vaccines, whether Ridd believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or what other "lunatic fringe" views Ridd may hold? Or is this another one of these attempts to discredit a scientist based on his associations as opposed to his scientific opinion?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's not toxic waste, but sediment dumping isn't exactly benign either. There's still problems with other sources of sediment as well.



Idea: use the dredged sediment to fill some of these.




The coal hoppers come back empty anyway. Might as well take advantage of them.

On the surface that's a good idea. Except for a couple of reasons. Firstly the cost in fuel and machinery to transport thousands of tonnes of sediment to some remote landfill site (No, you can't practically use coal conveyors, stacker/reclaimers, coal wagons or other coal transporting infrastructure - You need the same gear as is used for overburden removal). Secondly, the greenies would be all over this like a fat kid on a donut because there'd be sure to some endangered lizard or butterfly or something living in the proposed dump zone.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's not toxic waste, but sediment dumping isn't exactly benign either. There's still problems with other sources of sediment as well.

By posting an aerial photo of the coal depot at the port, The Guardian implied that the naturally built-up sediment was toxic waste. Or let's call it "sludge" for even better effect.

Of course the dredge material is not completely benign. Even it was 100% free of hard metals or other unnatural materials produced from the port, I imagine it could potentially suffocate coral if not dumped responsibly. But then the photo from one of your links shows just how much sediment runs naturally into the waters from rainfall & flooding. This has obviously been going on a lot longer than humans have been actively studying the GBR. Some of the coral adapts and survives while others don't. Nothing new about that one.

[Reefmagnet]

This "One man against the establishment" argument, reminds me of this famous photograph...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

This "One man against the establishment" argument, reminds me of this famous photograph...

And that guy wound up a wanted "criminal" in the eyes of the majority who thereafter crushed all further dissenting opinion. Sound familiar?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

On the surface that's a good idea. Except for a couple of reasons. Firstly the cost in fuel and machinery to transport thousands of tonnes of sediment to some remote landfill site (No, you can't practically use coal conveyors, stacker/reclaimers, coal wagons or other coal transporting infrastructure - You need the same gear as is used for overburden removal). Secondly, the greenies would be all over this like a fat kid on a donut because there'd be sure to some endangered lizard or butterfly or something living in the proposed dump zone.

I know that it isn't practical (you'd need different loaders, and a dump trestle at the mine, and probably some kind of rinse station, but I believe the coal wagons would suffice for sediment); I was just kind of attracted to the romantic notion of using one waste-product from exploiting nature to somewhat mitigate another. And not just dumping it in a marine park cos it's cheaper.

Don't lose any sleep over your second reason - ain't nothing natural about an abandoned open-pit mine. No greenie would object to dumping clean dredging sediment into one. Especially if you promise them a ski-hill. Oops sorry, wrong continent.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

And that guy wound up a wanted "criminal" in the eyes of the majority who thereafter crushed all further dissenting opinion. Sound familiar?

No, not at all.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I know that it isn't practical (you'd need different loaders, and a dump trestle at the mine, and probably some kind of rinse station, but I believe the coal wagons would suffice for sediment); I was just kind of attracted to the romantic notion of using one waste-product from exploiting nature to somewhat mitigate another. And not just dumping it in a marine park cos it's cheaper.

Don't lose any sleep over your second reason - ain't nothing natural about an abandoned open-pit mine. No greenie would object to dumping clean dredging sediment into one. Especially if you promise them a ski-hill. Oops sorry, wrong continent.

In 10 years, ski hills will be a distant memory....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

By posting an aerial photo of the coal depot at the port, The Guardian implied that the naturally built-up sediment was toxic waste. Or let's call it "sludge" for even better effect.

You have a valid point regarding the use of the word "sludge" in the title of the article, but to be fair, in the article itself, when The Guardian uses the word "sludge" it is only when quoting Senator Larissa Waters.

“The last thing the reef needs is more sludge dumped on it, after being slammed by the floods recently,” Waters said. “One million tonnes of dumping dredged sludge into world heritage waters treats our reef like a rubbish tip.”

and

“The backflip by state and federal Labor and Liberal governments several years ago, after sustained pressure from the Greens and the community, to ban offshore dumping from capital dredging shows they understand the damage this sludge can do to the marine environment – all the more so now that 50% of the corals have died from successive bleaching,” Waters said.

“Government policy needs to change to ban all offshore dumping, so GBRMPA is not allowed to permit the reef’s waters to be used as a cheaper alternative to treating the sludge and disposing of it safely onshore.”

The authors of the article use the more correct term "dredge spoil". Nowhere in the article was it suggested that the dredge spoil was contaminated by coal. Furthermore it also made clear that “Maintenance dredging involves relocating sediment which travels along the coast and accumulates over the years." The article also indicated that North Queensland Bulk Ports "dumping plan was peer-reviewed and considered best practice."

Frankly, I think you need to calm down, take a deep breath, and try reading the article for what it says, and not what you want/expect it to say.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't quite understand who or what you're referring to that you find antagonistic. If there are properly credentialed scientists who are considered experts in assessing the health of the GBR, then they're worth listening to. You or others may not agree with their expert opinions, but the disagreement should be for credible scientific reasons and not solely because they conform or don't conform to mainstream thinking. If Professor Ridd's opinion is that the GBR is not in serious jeopardy, then that opinion is only validated by all the attacks on him personally. On the other hand, if his opinion was scientifically suspect, then it would be all too easy to dismiss based on valid scientific reasons. Whenever I read unsubstantiated attacks on a scientist based on anything other than his or her actual science, I am suspicious of motives. But again, I'm not sure what exactly you find antagonistic in this particular discussion.

Someone using their ‘credentials’ to churn out unsubstantiated, malicious, loaded, manipulated data for the sole purpose of proving a point isn’t science, it’s propergander. Nothing personal here, I just like mine impartial and factual thanks. Don’t need a degree or accreditation to read any one of Ridds ‘press realease style science papers’ just a susceptible unquestioning mind apparently. They bear absolutely no resemblance to the legitimate, peer reviewed and published papers he’s written, it’s weird! But they are a really dull read with no pictures...so don’t bother.

http://https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/jcu/DA5453C168D269833E636FF058546F84.html

Someone with his ‘credentials’, I’m sure as you do, uses their words carefully and deliberately. Weather his motive was manipulation susceptible agent-driven adults, target a specific demographic or just a personal gripe I’ll leave for others to speculate. The guys been sacked as a result and Isnt it hypocritical to presume jcu is anything but innocent of their actions until proven otherwise...so Ridds current status is errr, guilty! The Credentialed poster boy martyr for the everyday Australian guy (and conflicted politicians), cant “win”

Has anyone noticed the clownfish pic at the top of the IPA page (link below) shows a clownfish RIDDled () with parasites, (the white spots around the eye) and disease? Difficult to say without a microscope but probably cryptocaryon irritants, but deff increased mucus and signs of necrotic tissue. Nice to see the reef inhabitants are doing JUST FINE (well unless you’re a taxonomic snob and think a fish has more rights to the reef than a tick)

http://https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/peter-ridd-and-the-science-of-reef-science

But yes you’re right, a lot of the more nuanced scientific banter I’m sure is lost on us average reader. So the irony that One of Ridds last jcu papers was about ‘quality control’ is probably lost on me. See below for a ‘truther’ quality scientific Statement

Mass coral death:
A story constructed to demonstrate the disaster of global warming,
and other human impacts.

I could go on but fear the real subtleties would be lost