Evidence of the corruption of the once sacrosanct scientific process grows daily with scientific bodies falling victim to wokeness, unscientific findings and pseudo-scientific romantic mythology. The latest report on the future of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) by the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) is another sad reflection of this depressing trend. According to long-time Reef expert Dr. Peter Ridd, the report demonstrates that the AAS, Australia’s principal science body, is not just unscientific, but anti-science. Writing recently in Spectator Australia, he also noted it had become “astonishingly woke”.
The AAS observed that the Reef could already be “irreversibly damaged”. This propagandised opinion flies in the face of the fact that coral on the Reef is at a 37-year record high, despite a challenging past decade of cyclones, natural localised warming spikes and starfish attacks. Coral is now double that recorded in 2012. Nowhere in the report, including the executive summary, introduction and conclusion, is any of this mentioned. Also considered unworthy of note is the fact that UNESCO recently declared the GBR was not endangered.
What we get is a parade of wokeness and half-baked possible solutions to combat the mortal danger the doomed GBR is supposed to be in. Much play is made of the involvement of aboriginal people in the roundtable process that helped compile the report. Having a ‘traditional knowledge co-chair’ in each roundtable “allows for different sources of knowledge to be shared”. This provides a “holistic” understanding of the GBR, encompassing “customary activities, song-lines, stories, totems and spirituality”.
The original settlers in Australia were immensely practical people learning to survive in a hostile environment. But Dr. Ridd suggests that selecting people on the basis of their ethnicity, rather than their scientific experience, is a “fundamentally anti-scientific approach”. He did however feel that people “deeply practical” about the Reef could have helped in pointing out the absurdity of some future actions proposed by the AAS. Deeply practical people know that you cannot bolt the Reef, the size of Germany, to the sea floor. Under “rubble stabilisation”, the AAS seems to suggest coral rocks can be glued back together. Even if by some “climate magic” the Reef is broken up, are they seriously suggesting we can wire it back together, asks Ridd.
Folk more practical than the experts at the AAS might also have a problem with “solar radiation management”, a daft idea, unsparing of other people’s money, that could see the entire Reef shaded from the sun with artificial fog and clouds. Of course, since this is an Australian Government-bound report, nothing as vulgar as costings are supplied. “How are you going to make a cloud as big as Germany and keep it anchored over the Reef for the whole summer over the next few hundred years?” asks Dr. Ridd. In addition, he continues, you will have to stop hot water flowing from the Coral Sea, and this would necessitate building a dam 2,000 kilometres long and 100 metres deep.
While a simple calculation is all that is required to reveal the absurdity of such ideas, “modern science is full of people who are almost completely non-quantitative and, as such, impractical and virtually useless as scientists”, concludes Ridd.
The recent coral recovery on the GBR has been a major embarrassment to many climate alarmists, not least those found in the mainstream media. The story has disappeared from the headlines, leading to the obvious charge that the MSM are now lying about the spectacular recovery by omission. In a recent report, Dr. Ridd, who was cancelled in 2018 from his post as a physics professor at James Cook University for questioning the institutional narrative around the GBR, said recent events “raised serious questions about integrity in science institutions and in the media”. Coral has never been in better shape, he reported. “An uncharitable observer might conclude that periodic mass coral mortality events, which are largely completely natural, are exploited by some organisations with an ideological agenda and a financial interest.”
The AAS holds itself out as providing “independent, authoritative and influential advice“ to Government. It appears to be somewhat ruthless in protecting its trade. Last year it called for broadcast news and the internet to censor what it called “climate denialism misinformation”, as well as “disinformation” about the GBR, Covid vaccines and other issues that result in “societal harm”. It went on to call for all social media platforms to proactively promote “trusted information” to “inoculate” people against misinformation. Platforms should be held accountable for content that challenges the official narrative on any of these issues.
At the time, the Australian climate writer Jo Nova quoted the atmospheric physicist Professor Garth Paltridge, who said: “I just cannot understand how any science academy that is supposed to operate through rational debate can behave like this – that is, to use pure political brute force to prevent one side of the argument from putting its case”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily ScepticI‘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.
It’s simply mind boggling what right thinking people are up against. A maths tutor I encountered some 45 years ago would develop a ‘proof’ on the chalkboard (it was white) that 1=2. He would ask who spotted the flaw in his convoluted reasoning and when identified by a sharp maths graduate, would emblazon IPOTARTP across the ‘proof’ explaining; “Gentlemen, It’s Perfectly Obvious To All Right Thinking People.” Would that there was more of that! The lecturer at RAF College Cranwell was called Darcy Redyhoff.
The proof is called reductio ad absurdum an example of which we were taught was to prove that the square root of two is irrational (ie cannot be expressed as a ratio or fraction). We started from the assertion that the square root of two = a/b and proceeded to ‘prove’ from that assumption that 1=2. The only fault in the chain of calculations was that first assumption – and therefore it was wrong.
Maths teacher was Mr McLean. I’m sorry to say we gave him the stupid nickname ‘Tube’.
Why sorry – everybody had nicknames for teachers – in my case it (Nobby) followed one from a different school at which a pupil’s brother had been taught,
That said his nose was HUUUUGE
I’m sorry for the razor-sharp ‘wit’* we displayed linking his surname to a well known brand of toothpaste.
Mind you – there were many worse.
*well, half right anyway.
In the physical sciences there are no “proofs” though, which enables the eco socialist pretend to save the planet people to get away with calling their fantasies “science”. But when something cannot be falsified then it isn’t “science” at all. For the proponents of global warming it is so easy to project all kinds of scenario’s that “might” or “could” or “are “likely” to occur all based on modelling. But modelling isn’t science and are evidence of NOTHING. I suspect most of the general public don’t know that and think it is all about “science”, when instead it has morphed into “Post Normal Science” and in the case of climate it is “Official Science” or “Government Approved Science” in support of public policy regarding energy use and all other aspects of our lives.
I get the strong impression that Chris has read Ridd’s article but not the AAS report. If he had he would see that Ridd is misleading about many things in the report. For example:
‘The AAS observed that the Reef could already be “irreversibly damaged”‘
No it didn’t. It observed that climate change, particularly under high emissions scenarios, might cause irreversible damage in the future and it was important to understand under what conditions this might happen.
‘Under “rubble stabilisation”, the AAS seems to suggest coral rocks can be glued back together.’
No they don’t. There are various techniques for rubble stabilisation which are already in use. They are described in this paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240846 which the AAS report refers to.
‘Folk more practical than the experts at the AAS might also have a problem with “solar radiation management”, a daft idea, unsparing of other people’s money, that could see the entire Reef shaded from the sun with artificial fog and clouds.‘
There is just one mention of solar radiation management in the entire AAS report. It is an item in a long list of possible interventions that might be considered in the future. There is no implication that it would involve shading the entire reef.
“No it didn’t. It observed that climate change, particularly under high emissions scenarios, might cause irreversible damage in the future and it was important to understand under what conditions this might happen.”
Ok, I will assume you have read the full report, what then is in the least bit scientific in the above statement? “Might?”
“There is just one mention of solar radiation management in the entire AAS report. It is an item in a long list of possible interventions that might be considered in the future. There is no implication that it would involve shading the entire reef.”
And here we go again, we have ‘solar radiation management’ from a long list of ‘possible interventions.’
Oh yes I can see the depth of scientific knowledge clearly now.
Given the undoubted robust health of the GBR despite all the nonsensical science mumbo jumbo thrown at it perhaps the most sensible course of action would be to leave it alone.
Well first – do you accept my point that Ridd wrote things about the report that were false?
Let’s move on to the more general point that you raise – the report wasn’t very “scientific”. I accept that (and there is some language I could do without – Traditional Knowledges) but I don’t think it was intended to be scientific or presented as being scientific. Although it was under the auspices of the AAS it was only a report of three round table discussions. Basically Ridd is attacking it for not being something it wasn’t intended to be and lying about what was in it.
“Well first – do you accept my point that Ridd wrote things about the report that were false?”
No I do not. A so-called report based on ‘mights’ and ‘possibles.’ Very scientific.
Basically you are criticising Chris Morrison for taking apart an at best lazy opinion piece which pretends to be rigorous science.
The fact that the eco-nutters will grasp this rubbish with both hands – and the authors know this – in order to support their morally and scientifically bankrupt stance confirms that it needs the strictest of take-downs.
For the sake of clarity could you let the membership know if you believe in anthropogenic global warming / boiling / climate change and if you do the reasons why?
No I do not. A so-called report based on ‘mights’ and ‘possibles.’ Very scientific.
I wasn’t claiming the report was scientific. I was pointing out some specific things that Ridd wrote about the report that were false. You seem reluctant to address them. Can you confirm that you have read the ASA report.
Basically you are criticising Chris Morrison for taking apart an at best lazy opinion piece which pretends to be rigorous science
Nope – I am criticising Chris Morrison for repeating things Ridd wrote (there is nothing original from Chris) when Ridd appears to have said many false things.
You valiantly defend the indefensible. You must see yourself as an eco socialist freedom fighter and some kind of self styled planet saving resistance movement.————————— Australia has a history of being economical with the truth on this issue, especially as regards their temperature record which has been fiddled about with more times than a lady of the night’s knickers. Good luck with your crusade, but you are barking up a very wrong tree mate.
I don’t wish any “CO2 Will Kill Us All” Net Zero fanatic “Good Luck” under any circumstances. If the Net Zero crusaders get their way many millions will die and The West will sink into poverty.
Yep. The medicine is worse than the malady. The solution to the alleged crisis is worse for us than the alleged crisis. ——-And ofcourse the crisis is only an “alleged” one not a real one.
Surely you can’t be defending wholesale dishonesty?.
Let me guess, you also think that Net Zero is about “the planet”, and not about controlling the plebs.
Once again you deny a general trend while picking on tiny details which are subject in part to interpretation. The phrase “irreversibly damaged” is indeed not used in the report. But the word “irreversibly” is used once, and the word “irreversible” is used 10 ten times, always accompanied by “might” or “likely” or “could” or some form of the future tense (ie, with reference to things that haven’t actually happened). Chris Morrison may have been hasty in coming up with that particular phrase, but it’s not hard to see why, given that it amounts to the same thing – alarmism in pursuit of political power. Has Chris Morrison read the report itself? I find it hard to believe he hasn’t, but I couldn’t give a toss; the direction of travel, as I tried to point out to you yesterday, is unclear only to the most determined DENIER – yes, others can use that word too (although I do so in a mostly humorous way and promise not to generally, honest).
Rubble stabilisation? No idea – you may be right – who cares, and I haven’t got time.
The phrase “solar radiation management” is indeed mentioned just once in the report – although the spectacularly sinister “solar geoengineering” is used too. However, “solar radiation management” is the first of a long series of interventions, and not merely “an item in a long list”. Perhaps the fact of its being placed first doesn’t mean a whole lot – but I rather think it does; this is what I mean when I say that such details are subject to interpretation, while the overall plan is clear. Fiddling while Rome burns. The prodigiously stupid idea that we can introduce cloud cover in an attempt to ‘cool things down’ is just another example of the staggering human arrogance that characterises contemporary scientific thinking; unforeseen consequences queue up for their moment on the stage… The instinct of ‘scientists’, backed by unhinged, messianic billionaire ‘philanthropists’, to meddle in natural processes in this way is the real danger we face – not some much-need extra sunshine.
Brilliant article looking at the bigger climate alarmism picture and what a disaster the mad headlong rush into Net Zero will be. As the Daily Sceptic likes to say….”Worth reading in full.” https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/09/13/heres_the_climate_dissent_youre_not_hearing_about_because_its_muffled_by_societys_top_institutions_978511.html
Try reading “Energy and Climate Wars” Peter Glover and Michael Economides. Or “Hubris” Michael Hart. —–The second one is quite a thick book but is absolutely great.
Excellent link, thanks.
If you want to hijack and take over an entire society, make sure you own and control ‘the science’ and the organs that will dutifully regurgitate it.
The greatest pseudo scientific fraud ever perpetrated against an unsuspecting public who think this is all about “science”.———-Nope. It NEVER WAS. —–In science scepticism is the greatest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin, but the eco socialist establishment take that unpardonable sin a step further and DEMAND we adhere to the blind faith like it was all ultimate truth. Infact we may now soon be jailed for refusing a smart meter or heat pump. How long before it will be prison for eating Steak Diane or being caught flying to Tenerife twice in the one year? Wakey wakey people temperature records are not manipulated for no reason. Phony reports of extinctions’ and collapsing of Barrier Reefs and global boiling etc are there for a purpose. ——To Control you. Every aspect of our life will soon be dictated by eco socialists. The politics of climate seeks to scare us all into accepting their Sustainable Development b..lsh.t. Or as someone once pointed out “Practical Politics is all about scaring the populace with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary and hence clamouring to be led to safety”. ———–Climate Change is simply the latest scary hobgoblin, but what a whopper it is.
Another great article, Chris. But my goodness it just gets more and more depressing every day. Fighting against the tide is a struggle at the best of times, but having been at it now for nearly five years I see no end in sight and things only getting worse. Brexit >> Covid >> Culture wars >> Thermageddon. Everywhere I look I see a naked emperor that most people think is impeccably dressed. This site helps keep me sane. Not sure for how long though.