This is the latest piece by freelance journalist Chris Morrison, who we’ve just appointed our Environment Editor. Chris started in financial journalism in the late 1970s and for nearly 20 years ran a company – Evandale Publishing – that he set up himself and eventually sold.
An 1871 dataset of sea temperatures across the Great Barrier Reef in Australia has been compared to recent measurements logged at the same reef areas. No differences in temperature were found by Dr. Bill Johnson, leading him to conclude: “Alarming claims that the East Australian Current has warmed due to global warming are therefore without foundation.”
The 1871 temperatures were taken by the SS Governor Blackall steamship on a voyage around the Australian east coast to observe a total eclipse of the sun in the north of the continent. Hourly measurements were made between 6am and 6pm every day in the voyage from Port Stanley, north of Sydney, to Cape York and repeated on the journey back. Dr. Johnson, a former research scientist at the New South Wales Department of Natural Resources, allowed for the considerable seasonal variations in temperature across the reef but concluded that nothing much had changed. He said there was no evidence that the system regulating temperature had broken down “or is likely to break down in the future”.
Needless to say, such stories do not tend to appear in the media, most of which is firmly wedded to the notion that human-caused global warming is destroying the coral reefs around the world. In October 2020, the BBC reported that the Great Barrier Reef had lost half of its coral since 1995, citing a report that said it was due to “warmer seas driven by climate change”. But Professor Peter Ridd, who has spent 40 years observing the reef, noted recently that it was in robust good health. Coral growth rates have if anything “increased over the last 100 years”. The graph below, compiled by Ridd from Australian Institute of Marine Science records, illustrates recent growth.
Agence France-Presse‘s award-winning reporter Marlow Hood recently quoted a University of Leeds paper that said coral reefs anchoring a quarter of marine wildlife will “most likely” be wiped out, even if the rise in global warming from pre-industrial times is capped at 1.5°C – which amounts to future warming of just 0.4°C, as 1.1°C has already occurred since 1820. Mr. Hood describes himself on his twitter feed as the “Herald of the Anthropocene” and was recently given €100,000 by the Spanish bank BBVA , which is heavily involved in Net Zero finance. In his commendation, Mr Hood was praised for his ability to “synthesize complex scientific models and studies and explain them in simple terms”. Certainly, Mr Hood went to the heart of the Leeds paper by further reporting that with an increase of 2°C, reef mortality “would be 100%”. This finding is said to have come from a “new generation of climate models”.
Corals have long occupied an exalted place in the climate tablets of doom. Their demise is commonly projected from the natural bleaching that occurs when they expel symbiotic algae, suggested to occur in reaction to sudden changes in water temperature. However, most bleaching – which also appears to have an important evolutionary function – occurs around weather oscillations, such as the El Niño event. These happen on a regular basis and once localised conditions have been stabilised, the coral usually recovers. Tropical coral thrives in temperatures between about 24°C and 32°C and sometimes grows quicker in warmer waters. Any change in long term global temperatures is unlikely to be a threat and certainly not one as small as 0.4°C. In any case, according to Dr. Johnson’s discoveries, there hasn’t been any change in such conditions on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 150 years.
A more practical threat to coral reefs is the less discussed practice of blowing them up and using them for building materials, jewellery, calcium health supplements and marine aquarium decorations. According to Big Blue Ocean Cleanup, an environmental non-profit organisation, this trade is worth $375 billion a year. This is an astonishing sum. Across the Pacific, Blue Ocean identifies two techniques of destruction. The first is small-scale mining using crowbars and sledgehammers to break off the coral branches. The second involves the use of dynamite.
Needless to say, this has an enormous impact on the surrounding eco-system, killing marine life and leaving a barren ocean behind. Indiscriminate destruction also causes sand erosion and removes coastal protection. Ironically, much of the coral has been used to build airports and resorts in places like the Maldives to house tourists who come to marvel at the reefs.
Coral reefs need protecting. It is not a good idea to drench them in untreated sewage, douse them with toxic chemicals, smash up their habitat with reckless fishing or rearrange the ocean floor with high explosives. But this is relatively mundane environmental housekeeping work. It is a world away from using unproven science statements and climate models to spout ‘save the planet’ rhetoric and push for an unrealistic control-and-distribute Net Zero project.
In the run up to COP26, one of Prince William’s £1 million “Earthshot” gifts was handed to a small Bahamian company called Coral Vita that says it grows coral to replant in the ocean. Writing in the Spectator Australia, the biologist Jennifer Marohasy noted that the Australian government permitted the mining every year of 200 tonnes of coral from the Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, $1 billion Australian dollars was provided to save the ‘dying’ reef. Some of this money, she noted, will be used to replant corals.
She added: “[T]here will be jobs for scuba divers, and it will be filmed by underwater videographers, marine scientists will collect data around the programme and boats will be chartered. There will be money for almost everyone who wants to participate – if they are vaccinated, believe in human-caused climate change and believe the Great Barrier Reef is dying.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Might there be any countries for which the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
Wouldn’t that be most countries outside Europe?
I suppose the questions might be:
Does the conflict lead to increased exports?
Does the conflict lead to opportunities to take advantage of a distracted West?
Well, how about those that will benefit form selling Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)? According to the Beeb world propaganda radio, most of the plant for processing LNG is in eastern England, with pipelines across to Belgium & the Netherlands. Apparently even Australia is a potential source, also Canada, as well as the middle east. So, it’s likely that a fair bit will arrive here by sea, then converted to gas and exported to the mainland.
I’m not sure what the currency is, but spot the cash flow into HMG.
I think that may be the wrong question.
It assumes that the actions of countries are taken for the benefit of those countries, meaning, the people of those countries. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the state power of countries is hijacked by interest groups who use it for their purpose and benefit.
So the more accurate question, I think, may be: are there those for whom the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
I am ever more certain that thinking of countries as monolithic units with a common interest only serves to confuse and muddle any attempt to understand what is really going on.
No…the fact that the EU is the second biggest economy after the USA, and is now an economic basket-case…can’t possibly help the US…..?
….and that the USA has become the largest LNG exporter in 2022, driven by European demand….…can’t possibly help the US…?
…and that the same US just might have had a teensy-weensy involvement in fomenting said conflict?
Just coincidence…LOL….!
A case of the US economy tanking & taking out the European one so that the NWO can be more easily installed.
Quite possibly, there were several scenarios when planning this campaign with Ukraine falling quickly being just one of them. But Moscow were negotiating from day one with not unreasonable demands well short of requesting full capitulation of Kiev.
Without negating the bravery of ordinary ukrainian soldiers, the task set for the russian military was extremely difficult. It had to target military objects, spare civilian lives and infrastructure trying not to alienate Ukrainian population while undertaking full scale military operation. Russia couldn’t just carpet bomb starting with Kiev thus decapitating the country. You also can’t dismiss ruinous errors and corruption on the russian side.
Is Ukraine holding for all this time against Russia a blessing or curse? One thing is certain – more Ukrainians will die. Will they be able to defeat Putin eventually as US wants them to? Not while Russia having nuclear weapons. Repel Russians from Ukraine? Maybe eventually in several years’ time. But was it what Ukrainians voting for Zelenskyy wanted? They wanted the end of Donbass war, but got full scale proxy war between nuclear powers in their country.
The response in Europe in particular to Russia’s Ukraine invasion was swift and highly coordinated.
“Sponataneous” expressions of support for Ukraine popped up on TV screens across Europe and in the UK almost instantly.
As far as I’m aware the sanctions imposed on Russia were not debated and decided in parliaments. They weren’t decisions taken by each individual country. They were decided at some supra-national level. The nominally elected heads of governments of our countries were gathered together and informed of what the “coordinated” response would be. And that was it.
This is the reality of our world. Decisions that have massive implication for our lives and our livelihoods are being decided by a group of people that we don’t really know who they are. We can speculate, but we don’t know.
In summary, the question of whether Ukraine was over estimated or underestimated is interesting, I suppose. But far more interesting is by whom?
I’m genuinely interested in finding out who makes the decisions of the British state (and all the other so called democratic states.)
WEF?
It’s an obvious candidate. But I think that at best the WEF is a rough approximation to the answer because the process by which the WEF reaches its well publicised and seemingly very transparent proclamations is rather opaque.
So when the WEF comes up with some dystopian insanity about the 4th industrial revolution, which really does seem to be reflected in actual policy implemented by many countries, who came up with it? Did Klaus Schwab? Was it a group of oligarchs who use the WEF and Schwab as a mouthpiece and. consensus building organism? Is there a board of WEF grandees that act in representation of a group of major corporations, institutions and perhaps some bigger countries?
Maybe the WEF is more like a system for producing groupthink. It gathers together people with influence, puffs them up telling them they are not just influential in their country or in their industry but on a global scale and then gets them talking to each other about the same things, climate change and controlling this and controlling that. They pepper in platitudes about making the world better and global responsibility to make themselves feel good about it all. And before you know it they’re all marching together like drones in the same direction.
What is undeniable is that the things the WEF says seem to be closely aligned with policy in western countries. How much the WEF leads and how much it follows is what isn’t at all clear.
And Bill Gates.
I agree with what you say…particularly in relation to the ‘spontaneous’ expressions of support…which to be fair just feels on the whole like horrendous one-sided propaganda….which media, anywhere, has discussed Russia other than as the bogey-man? Pretty much tells you there’s an ‘accepted’ agenda…
I know we have to unpick what we can from the media, but I don’t trust Reuters, anymore than I trust any MSM. Reuters has a ‘fact-checking’ partnership with Twitter and Facebook, we all know which way those lean…
They have ties with the WEF, Pfizer, and the Trusted News Initiative…well it’s not trusted by me…
I can’t disagree with any of that.
1) Russia expect good a quick win was the Straw Man of USA & NATO Countries propaganda. Russia made no such claim.
2) The ‘West’ didn’t under-estimate Ukraine, they under-estimated Russia – its willingness and ability to grind on, slowly, militarily and how adept it was at reorganising its economy.
‘… additional explanations. One is that European leaders didn’t expect Russia to respond by cutting off the gas supply…’
‘This seems extremely implausible, as it would imply our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs.’
Dear me!
Earth to Noah Carl. Earth to Noah Carl. On which planet have you been these last few years?
Implausible, because it implies that our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs? Well, indeed. Have you seen the shower of ‘leaders’ we have allowed to infest our governments? Half are pocket-lining, self-serving snakes who are taking orders from Brussels, the other half really are morons who think that being a good leader is promising to wipe everyone’s bum for them, then turning around to random businesses and individuals and saying ‘make it happen, I’ve got other things to do.’ And telling naughty Putin to just stop invading other countries, or else they will call him nasty names (not take him on in combat, of course).
The EU nations responded as one because Brussels instructed them to. This is the same Brussels that, under the authoritarian ‘green’ commissioner Timmermans, is literally telling people they just have to accept they will get poorer and will freeze and sit in the dark – all well awarding themselves a pay rise, natch.
Why is Brussels doing this? Pressure from the US combined with a hare-brained idea that this will help them achieve their ‘green’ plan. Once people see how wonderful it is to take cold showers and play shadow puppets by candle light, they will embrace the green. The one thing these people most definitely do not have is a basic understanding of human affairs. I think they really were shocked when, after telling Putin for weeks they would not pay for Russian gas, Putin turned off the gas. What the hell did they expect? They kept saying that not only would they not pay for it, they wouldn’t buy it after they had filled up their stores for the winter. And then were surprised when he said ‘fine by me’.
Certainly both Putin and the EU underestimated Ukraine’s military capabilities.
‘One of the most curious aspects of the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine was how little effort the Kremlin had put into preparing its own population for what was about to be undertaken. The justification for the operation was made suddenly, over the course of about 10 days. In this it resembled the annexation of Crimea, despite being a much greater endeavour, suggesting that the Russian government wished to present it to the Russian public as a fait accompli.’
RUSI 22 Apr 22
The EU had, arguably still has, a complete blindspot regarding defence capability generally, particularly conventional defence in Europe, since its foreign policy has been dominated from 2005-2021 by a ‘peacenik’. The idea that economic ties between Germany and Russia would guarantee peace derived from the original concept of the EU as a construct to defang the Franco German struggles for supremacy in Europe of the recent past.
The fly in the ointment in all this has been the outstanding efforts of Britain, and, specifically, British Army trainers, as good as any worldwide, with recent combat experience, in training up the Ukrainian Army since 2014.
Swift and accurate target acquisition, using novel techniques, by well trained Ukrainian Forces has given Ukrainian artillery a force multiplying lethality.
If that has caught the world by surprise, it should not have. Montgomery instilled the need for intensive training into the British Army and that priority remains today. Consequently, they are very good at it.
But the British Ministry of Defence has, itself, been surprised by the failure of British and European conventional deterrence; Putin ‘going the full tonto’.
The lack of availability of significant European mechanised forces to protect EU members closest to Russia has contributed to the unmitigated disaster now in train in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, Poland, for example, is now intent upon purchasing 1000 tanks from South Korea, the only country able to supply that volume at relatively short notice.
What is the Ukrainian Army asking for, and they certainly appear to know what they are doing?
Tanks.
Britain’s modern tank numbers? That would be 148, available on a good day i.e. not really.
We have been caught napping, as we were in 1938.
The failure of conventional deterrence is always expensive. It is not yet clear that the political will exists in Europe, or Britain, to put a credible conventional deterrent back together again.
And yet that is the only thing that will guard against further military adventurism in Europe, as Poland, much closer to the action, with a legacy of suffering from just such historical occurrences, understands only too well.
It cannot be repeated too often; to the Russian mind, quantity has a quality all of its own. They, and others like them, will not be deterred by drones and cyber. By the time cutting edge systems can take effect, deterrence will have failed.
Deterrence is the key. If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
This is concerning….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-soldiers-told-ready-war-27791322
Especially as there is some information coming out that the ‘migrants’ being shepherded across the Channel are in fact UN militia currently being trained by the British Army in time for martial law to ensure full compliance with lockdowns, digital ID for rations etc
BE prepared!
https://rumble.com/v1ggt9v-britain-got-no-idea-what-coming-they-are-fast-asleep.html
What a pleasure it is to watch the gullible Brits swallow the ukraine/Russia fictionalised “war” and happily take it in the shorts by paying more for their energy this winter.. Ukraine, the third most corrupt country in the world and the Brits are doing their national duty and standing up for the “poor Ukrainians. Meanwhile zelensky, previously employed as a comedienne has a mega million dollar mansion on the beach in Florida and other properties. But the stoic Brits will do whatever they can to support ukraine against that bad man Putin. Has anyone even bothered to ask why exactly energy bills will be skyrocketing this winter. Anything to do with the US sanctions? Oh and don’t forget to take your next booster of the clot shot, guaranteeing ongoing mutation of the covid virus. The newest bivalent shot doesn’t even cover the current covid variant
but be sure to take it!!!