You would have to have a heart of stone not to chuckle at the coral contortions endured by many journalists as they wrote through gritted keyboards that the little critters are growing back in record numbers on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The initial reaction seems to have been one of shock. It cannot be true – Sir David Attenborough had assured us that the GBR was in “grave danger” of disappearing within decades because of climate change. Far from disappearing, the coral is now at its highest cover level since reef-wide monitoring began 36 years ago.
The news has yet to feature on the BBC climate page. The Corporation employs numerous environment correspondents, but the only report on its news site had a Sydney, Australia byline and appeared on the general science page. Curiously there was a similar absence of reporting earlier this year, when it was learnt that the South Pole had recently had its coldest six month winter since records began.
For the last three days, the BBC has been leading its climate coverage with a pile of emotional tosh arguing that scientists are not taking seriously enough the possibility of catastrophic climate change outcomes, “including human extinction”. According to the lead author, an international relations specialist, the “closest attempts” to address this have come from popular science books such as The Uninhabitable Earth, “and not from mainstream science research”. This last remark prompted the science writer Jo Nova to comment: “Essentially they are telling us we need to panic because there are no scientific papers telling us to panic.”
I digress, back to actual science and the coral reefs. Much of the mainstream commentary picked up on the steer from the Australian Institute for Marine Science (AIMS) that growth had come from the faster-growing corals. One might well comment, it would, wouldn’t it. In addition, there have been further outbreaks of bleaching. Again, the science writer Jo Nova notes that bleaching has probably occurred for millions of years, “there were just not many scuba divers to record it”. We ought to be shocked if corals did not have a full toolkit to cope with rapid changes, she said. She added that this latest 2021/22 study from AIMS, “was an absolute blockbuster in terms of busting the myth that corals are on the verge of extinction”.
Reef expert Peter Ridd said the GBR has proven to be a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. This should not be a surprise, he noted, since there are few human pressures on the reef, and it is well protected. “It is also unreasonable to expect that the small temperature rise over the last century (1°C) will have caused much impact, especially as it is well known that most corals grow faster in warmer waters,” he added.
In his view, the AIMS data show the reef is a robust system with rapidly fluctuating coral cover. We must expect coral cover to fall sometime in the future. In a comment, perhaps aimed at Attenborough, he said we should remember, “it is almost certainly natural, and not allow the merchants of doom to depress the children”.
Peter Ridd is a physicist and has researched the GBR since 1984. He was the former head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland. In 2018 he was fired for pointing out quality assurance deficiencies in reef-science institutions. In a recent note published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation he charged that over the last few years, AIMS “has effectively hidden the good news on coral cover”. Much of the recent doomsday coral copy from journalists would appear to reflect this agenda.
From 2017, AIMS stopped publishing the average coral cover for the GBR, and only issued disaggregated figures for three sectors, northern, central and southern. But figures are available, and Ridd has compiled the above graph for aggregated coral cover over the entire reef. He uses AIMS figures for 1986-2017, and his own from 2017. It shows in a dramatic fashion the spectacular growth since the low point around 2016, when the reef was badly affected by natural depredations arising from a powerful El Niño event. Coral reefs are home to many species and AIMS defines 30-50% cover as a ‘high value’ based on historical surveys. Ridd reports that current cover is almost 34%, with a small margin of error. In his view, only by seeing all the data aggregated for the entire reef can the “exceptional” state of the coral be appreciated. Ridd feels it is “surprising” that AIMS no longer provides an average coral cover for the entire GBR, because it had previously made far reaching claims about the poor state based on reef-wide average data.
In fact he went on to note that when coral cover hit a low point around 10% in 2011 after being devastated by major cyclones, AIMS authors, in a paper widely quoted in the media, said “coral cover in the central and southern regions of the GBR is likely to decline to 5-10% by 2022”.
Ridd concludes that by no longer publishing an average figure for the entire reef, AIMS “has obscured the good news for 2022, and drawn a veil over their inaccurate prediction of a decade ago”.
Polar bears increasing, forests of coral springing up, global warming not happening, even Arctic ice seems to be making a small comeback. Is there no end to all this bad news for green agenda-driven journalists?
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
These idiots are fast approaching my debanking/defunding list. We are members, but I am sick of their morbid stupidity, endless simpleton wokisms, racisms, and climate bollocks. Just take care of the god damn buildings and heritage sites and shut the hell up. Or watch your membership dwindle.
Ferd I’m amazed you haven’t left yet. The NT has always frozen their property in aspic, a form of living death.
The problem is, whether or not I remain a member, The National Trust does own large swathes of coastline in the South West and it is this National Trust coastline that keeps us a members, otherwise I think I would leave.
I did not renew my membership after purchasing one of their leaflets describing walks around Hawkshead in the lake district.
In the leaflet they described Vikings as Scandinavian refugees.That was the last straw for me.Even the kids asked what on earth are they on about?
Presumably, that’s because they believe the refugees of today are repeating what the Vikings did in the past.
:->
Yep———-Ironically the Swedes today are now paying for their multicultural dogma as 20 times more sexual crimes are committed by the latter day rapists than by indigenous Swedes. —-But so determined are they that this isn’t true that they make it a crime to talk about it.
Yes I believe the Vikings were put up in castles at taxpayers expense, and I had always thought they were rapists and pillagers. Sorry I now admit I was wrong and that we should pay money for past injustices to all red haired people.
The NT has set its course and there is no rowing back for them now despite your displeasure or any number of members displeasure. There is no way that their proscribed agenda will be allowed to be perceived by the public to have been overturned by a members revolt. Money will be found either from lottery, government or billionaire funding sources to ensure that a popular revolt of this kind fails – God forbid, the people may apply the same democratic principle to all manner of things.
“Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director at the trust”
Who the F. thinks these job titles up? Doubtless another waster on a couple of hundred grand a year. He belongs in the bottom block. A complete Next Tuesday.
Probably a relation of the useless lefty economist David Begg. He was one of the crazies desperate to bounce UK in to the euro. Essentially a useful idiot. Once yr in the woke aristocracy these sinecures become rather easier to obtain.
Thanks
I think there should be a competition for the most ridiculous job titles in the wake of the climate alarm, HP.
You are right Aethelred.
Former member of NT here. The main threat to ‘their’ properties is haemorrhaging support. They keep telling us about the slave-owning history of the builders and owners of the houses – so why don’t they burn them down to demonstrate their contempt more fully?
A Minister for Management of Civilisational Decline would be more useful.
Congratulations Minister. Yours is the only department to achieve its targets.
The Ministry for Silly Talks?
I suggest a Minister for Deaeration of Woke Windbags.
Thanks for then new word.
Maybe the droughts and wildfires will be offset by the floods. It just needs a longer term perspective than most marketing plans.
Make no mistake, this is marketing and not true concern for environments that have suffered all these “hazards” in past years.
Not yet another bloody government department about the climate alarm. We need that new Argentinian prez Javier Milei to do one of his – “Ministry of Climate Adaptation? OUT!” actions. Honestly, the NT are losing it…drought, heavy rain, wildfires? But not today or tomorrow but by 2060! For god’s sake, just get a deckchair and some wellies.
Why the hell are we worrying about 2060. The so-called Tory dupes have caused enough damage to this country these past fourteen years. It’s 2023, can we pay attention to NOW?
Apparently the planet might be a couple of degrees warmer by 2100. Well if anybody is still on this planet in 2100 lucky them, personally I would appreciate those two degrees NOW.
And I won’t be here in 2060 so actually I CGAF about effing global boiling, flooding, freezing or whatever other nonsense they come up with.
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
https://documents.nationaltrust.org.uk/story/annual-report-2023/page/2/1
I haven’t had a good look yet but I am sure this will be interesting
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
Tomorrow is something the people of tomorrow will have to deal with tomorrow. People who claim they are solving the problems of tomorrow by creating problems today just want to distract from the latter. They don’t know anything about the real problems of tomorrow and the people of tomorrow obviously haven’t appointed them as their representatives. Conveniently, they just cannot yet object to what’s supposedly being done in their name.
Excellent
It’s a shame that they appear to be jumping onto the bandwagon using “climate change” in lieu of normal extreme weather events and the need to maintain various structures, both old and new. I am actually a member of it. The original reason why I joined was doing the sums for parking at a number of their sites. In effect, paying up front, but less than non-members have to pay given the number of times I go to them.
I’ve often parked without paying. Don’t think their fines are enforcible anyway. I feel eternal shame that I belonged to this organisation for a couple of decades. I should be flayed like Henry the second was in Canterbury cathedral and be forced to sleep on the floor with no blanket.
..and lo the grift continues unabated.
….”“the single biggest threat” to the charity’s mission”, is your organisation’s woke-ism, Mr Begg.
I used to be a member. I looked at moving my subscription to the RSPB, but they’re almost as bad.
Do not support any of them.
I don’t. I want to support the wildlife, our heritage etc., but unfortunately, no organisation can be trusted it seems.
The charity […] said approximately 71% of the places it looks after could be at medium or high risk of climate hazards by 2060.
Attempt to translate this into English: Hazard means risk. Hence, the last bit is
climate risks in 37 years.
Combining this with the bit in front of it yields
above-average risk of climate risks in 37 years.
Then, we have the could, a subjunctive, ie, another risk. We’re now at
there’s a risk of above average risk of climate risks in 37 years
Filling in the last bit now gives the complete sentence:
Modelling has shown that there will be a risk of above average risk of climate risks for about 3/4 of the places the National Trust is currently administrating in 37 years.
What’s that’s supposed to mean – beyond No climate-related damage expected until at least 2060 – is anybody’s guess. Presumably, the point is to repeat risk combined with climate as often as possible to convey the impression of a serious danger. Someone demanding anything based on a statement like this should be unceremoniously shown door and told not to come back until he has at least managed to make up his mind about what he’s actually afraid of.
So far the evidence is the greatest danger to the fabric of the buildiungs and their contents arises from the incompetence of the NT which allows them to burn to the ground.
Interesting that they demand a minister for climate adaptation. In some ways I agreenm with adapting to changes in our environment. Stop wasting huge resources on trying to change the temperature, which is impossible but, as required, adapt to changes – which is what humans have always done. Is the National Trust finally bending to the obvious?
We need to “tackle” Climate change…..so give us some more money.
It’s hilarious how they use “adaptation” and not ‘mitigation’, as these clowns think we can control the weather.
Translation: Systems going well…. Send more money.
Where does this National trust gets its information from? ——-Do they ever question any of it? ——-Very unlikely. Rent seekers question nothing. After all if you need money for something, being alarmist about climate is a great way to get it. If you are a coral island in the pacific what better to get big sums of money from the eco socialist western world than claim you are going to vanish beneath the waves. If you are animal rights activists who think we should all eat vegetables and locusts, what better way to stop people killing animals for food than to claim the animals destroy the climate. If you build turbines or smart meters, what better way to farm all the subsidy than claim your products save the planet. etc etc etc………”Climate Change” —–The gift that keeps on giving. But the gifts are all paid for by us.——– And it is costing trillions.