Environment, International, Politics, Science

Problem Solved? Australia Succeeds In Stripping All References To The Great Barrier Reef From Climate Change Report

BleachedcoralIn another disgraceful move related to environmental damage, the Australian government has stripped out any reference to the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Territory’s glorious Kakadu national park and Tasmania’s forests in a report on climate change. Equally disgraceful was the willingness of Unesco to knuckle under to any country that objected to such references in the report entitled “Destinations at Risk: World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate.” The massive “bleaching” of the Great Barrier Reef has horrified people around the world as we watch the loss of this natural wonder to climate change and poor governmental policies, as we previously discussed.

Australia insisted that the references to the Great Barrier Reef “had the potential to cause considerable confusion” because it had gotten the UN to drop references earlier to the reef as “in danger.” However, that move was also denounced since the over-whelming environmental and scientific community view the reef as endangered from mass coral bleaching. So now the report has been whitewashed, leaving it looking much like the reef itself.

24 thoughts on “Problem Solved? Australia Succeeds In Stripping All References To The Great Barrier Reef From Climate Change Report”

  1. I agree with Australia. Listing the Great Barrier Reef would have a negative impact on tourism and money donated to protect the reef through more meaningful methods than that advocated to fight against global warming.

    I visited the Great Barrier Reef last year and it all looked pretty good to me. I even saw a lot of Crown of Thorns starfish, but the reef looked in pretty good shape.

    What this entire process illustrates is that politics rather than good science determines the environmental status of these things.

  2. Someone posted a photo of Al Gore above. Which way does Al go on Global Warming?

  3. Darren. Please post. I am fed up with the Washington Post and St. Louis Post and other media posts. I agree with Karen.

  5. Australia is rapidly becoming another Asian colony – for the usual reasons: e.g. not much competition for opening corner stores, and an increasing number of low-income people to sell to. They used to have strict limitations on who could immigrate there. Now, as here, even their NPR equivalent folks have bought into the same open borders idea promoted by and for the 1%.

  6. Consensus on planet Earth. Hmmm. The Australia place is a long way away. Between here and there are many folks of different strokes. Some believe in God. Most probably. Some believe in different Gods. Some believe in Mohammed. Some in Christ. Some folks revel on Christmas Day. Others on Easter. Some believe in Dog. Different strokes for different folks. I believe in no God. I believe in Climate Change. I believe that in one year we will have an event which will make issues like the Barrier Reef seem distant. I think that the Mississippi and Ohio rivers will clog up where they meet. Mark Twain will come back from the dead on a riverboat called Queen. And Proud Mary will keep on rollin. Those are some thoughts.

  7. One would have hoped with the sacking of Tony Abbott there might have been a change of approach within the Australian government. It seems his legacy is more entrenched than desirable.

    Ironically, his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, was the Minister for the Environment and Water in 2007.

  8. We just experience a major El Nino event. The biggest since 1998, which itself was big. But the current El Nino is essentially over. NOAA, Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, and people who monitor these things are forecasting a La Nina starting this fall.

    During the 1998 El Nino 80% of the coral in Scott Reef was “bleached”. The same eco-zealots and hysterics spouting off about the El Nino caused bleaching today predicted the Scott Reef would take decades to recover. Except it had fully recovered after only 12 years.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-04-remote-reefs-tougher.html

    If you want to save the coral then tell your rich friends to stop snorkeling and scuba diving in the ocean’s coral reefs. They leave 14,000 tons of sunscreen every year. The active ingredient of which is so toxic to coral that the chemicals in a single drop of sunscreen can damage the coral.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/20/450276158/chemicals-in-sunscreen-are-harming-coral-reefs-says-new-study

  10. yyy – I’m sorry, I see where you may be mistaken. As Paul says, consensus does not equal scientific truth. COME ON.

    Flat Earth? Sun revolves around us? CONSENSUS!!!

    I apologize again, as this was the link I meant to include. It is a SHORT read, you should try it.

    http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/p/absorption-areaanalysis-in-printout.html
    —–

    I read your link, the 97% of scientist consensus is a lie. The IPCC disregarded all opposing viewpoints and only kept on board the ones they liked.

    Although don’t take my word for it, here is a cheap DIY demo for you to replicate at home and disprove CO2 as a warming agent:

    http://globalwarmingnotes.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-25-proof-demo.html

  11. @Paul Schulte –

    “scientific truth is scientific truth whether it is one person or 1,000,000”

    There is no way to know “scientific truth” as you are using the term. You’re right, over time it may turn out that one person was right and the consensus was wrong, but this statement is exactly equivalent to saying that the consensus has changed. To say that public policy should be informed by science can only mean that it should be informed by scientific consensus (in cases where a strong consensus exists, as it clearly does in the case of climate change).

    1. yyy – just because the consensus changed does not mean the science is suddenly right. The problem with a consensus is that technically, it requires everyone to agree. Right now there is not a consensus.

  13. @Steg – Scientific truths are established by consensus (not by any single report or experiment), and the consensus on climate change has been clear and consistent over several years. Start here, if you wish.

    1. yyy – scientific truth is scientific truth whether it is one person or 1,000,000. Consensus does not make it scientific proof. Consensus is bad science.

  15. “Since the entire data set the report is based on is fraudulent, what difference does it make?”

    Right, braindead libertarians have no answer to climate change so it must be denied. You people are ridiculous.

    1. yyy – since Michael Mann is hiding all the data for climate change, I have every right to deny climate change.

  16. Did the report reference the decades-long damage caused by the Crown of Thorns starfish? It’s been a very big problem for a very long time.

  17. Tell the dumb aussies to stop using bleach in their laundry. Ask Clorex to deny sales to that place. Deny visas to Americans who wish to visit. Deny Aussies entry to the U.S. If it is a “barrier” reef then what does it keep out of Australia?

  18. Since the entire data set the report is based on is fraudulent, what difference does it make?

  19. We’re the worst species in this planet’s history.

    Our collective pollution is astounding and our apathy regarding its impact is epic.

  20. Facts do tend to confuse the issues. I prefer them spun (not stirred).

Comments are closed.