Category Archives: Great Barrier Reef

Will Morrison claw back the $444 million Turnbull handed to the Reef Foundation

by Brent Melville

AUSTRALIA’S new Prime Minister Scott Morrison is an evangelical Christian. The deputy prime minister Josh Frydenberg is Jewish by religion.

It is not difficult to put the case that their values clearly do not synchronize with the environmentalist ideology being pushed on Australians under the so-called 2030 Sustainable Development Goals i.e. Agenda 20-30, which is subscribed to by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, state governments and councils.

Will Scott Morrison claw back the $444m Turnbull handed to the GBRF of which his wife is patron?

Running parallel to this is the cultural Marxism as recognised in programs such as “Safe Schools” and the “diversity” agenda being pushed by governments, corporations and big sporting codes.
The so-called sustainable development goals in many ways are actually anti-economic development. They supposedly justify the creation of elitist qangos like the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) to guide the unwashed masses into the supposed green, diverse global utopia.
The GBRF, with its six employees, was recently given an outrageous handout of $487.6 million by ex-PM Turnbull through then Environment Minister Frydenberg. Of course it’s not all for the employees, but to be dished out to any number of projects that supposedly do something to “save the reef from destruction”.
The sham is that some scientists who have long observed and studied the reef say it is not in danger of dying at all.

The handout would have to rate as one of, if not the biggest environmental rort in Australian history – close to the $460m spooned out to the horrifically crooked Clinton Foundation and associated entities by both Labor and Coalition governments.

The question is, can Morrison and Frydenberg, the Christian-Jewish duo, do something to break the oppressive grip of green-tinged cultural Marxism over Australia?
Both should readily understand the disconnect between their respective beliefs and the philosophy behind Agenda 20-30.
The Old Testament story common to both Judaism and Christianity tells of the earth and mankind being created by a supernatural God of infinite wisdom and love, who put mankind in charge of the planet with instructions (Genesis 1:28) to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (or fill) the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. The Commonwealth of Australian, through the English law tradition, has been and hopefully still is guided by Christianity and the “Almighty God” referred to in the Preamble to the Constitution.

This tradition recognises The Lord’s Prayer as a spiritual principle for the good government of the nation, hence it being a voluntary part of the parliamentary procedure – even if large numbers of MPs these days reject it.

But environmentalists mostly do not accept the existence of a God who is ultimately in control of the planet. If they are open to any spirituality at all, it’s the idea of a pagan spiritual entity called Gaia, the Mother Earth goddess of Greek mythology.

But there are also many atheistic or agnostic environmentalists who claim to be solely led by “science”, which for them has no place for spiritual entities, faith or a Creator. Their explanation for the existence of all things is the shaky theory of evolution, which is supposedly proven by science.
For those unconvinced either way on this matter, look up a lecture on YouTube by the late Chuck Missler, a former industrial engineer, who explains how Darwin’s “simple cell” theory, taught in high school classes as the basis of evolution, has now been totally disproven by modern science.

Science, rather than pointing to random, chance mutations as being the answer to life as we know it, now points to intelligent design in nature.

Where, we might ask, did this design, this highly ordered and complex information come from?

Those of faith might also ask, did the God of creation miscalculate the ability of the planet to sustain an ever-growing population or the ability of those “made in His likeness” to find technology in order to inhabit the vast, unpopulated regions and oceans of the earth and eventually, other planets.

Environmentalism, by contrast, says the human species as an imposition upon “nature” or “Gaia”.

Humans, they maintain, are causing nature to fail and Gaia to spin out of control in apocalyptic climate change, therefore humans must reduce their numbers and radically cut their economic activity.
Ideally, according to this global green ideology, we should be living in cubicles in high-rises covered in vines with little or no electricity, apart from that which solar panels or windmills can dribble in.
It’s a miserable outlook for humanity, otherwise known as cultural pessimism.

Whether a Christian and Jew in charge of Australia’s governing Coalition party, can throw off this dark cloud over the nation, has yet to be seen.

Advertisements

Senator Keneally says something ‘fishy’ about Turnbull’s $444M grant to Barrier Reef Foundation

from the Australian Morning Mail

The Clintons and Turnbulls

One can’t escape that the two families seem to like ‘foundations’, it has a cozy sound, one of philanthropy through the pure heart of a samaritan—even Mother Theresa like. Past Australian governments simply adored the Clinton Foundation to the tune of more than $400 million. Gillard is in there somewhere also. Perhaps ‘foundation’ was the lure for Malcolm? The Great Barrier Reef Foundation sounds regal—don’t you think? The Clinton Foundation $400 million odd. The GBRF $444 million—not too much and not too little. Gee, big Mal has a lot of good friends—today. Tomorrow—I dunnow!

Malcolm Turnbull’s office has confirmed that two of the directors of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation — the recipient of a $444 million grant from his government awarded without tender — may have been hosted at the Prime Minister’s home by wife Lucy.

Source: News Corp

PM fends off Lucy’s links to $444m reef grant recipients

The Australian can reveal the head of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s philanthropy committee, Stephen Fitzgerald, a one-time head of Mr Turnbull’s former investment bank Goldman Sachs, was on the board of the European Business Advisory Council at the same time as Mrs Turnbull.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with wife Lucy

Mr Fitzgerald is also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre in Sydney — where Mrs Turnbull is patron — and was on that council while Mrs Turnbull held the role of deputy chair between 2012 and 2015.

The chairman of the philanthropy committee for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation before Mr Fitzgerald, Stephen Roberts, was also on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time Mrs Turnbull held ceremonial roles. Mr Roberts resigned from his foundation role in June after being charged with ­alleged criminal cartel conduct.

Asked yesterday whether Mr Fitzgerald or Mr Roberts had been to the Turnbulls’ home, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “Prior to 2015, as deputy chair of the US Studies Centre, Mrs Turnbull occasionally hosted USSC directors and advisers at her home.”

The revelations will raise more questions about the grant to the foundation but the Prime Minister’s office insists the decision was not a result of connections.

The Australian understands Mrs Turnbull concedes she knows Mr Fitzgerald but says she has not seen him for more than three years and cannot “recall” discussing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with him.

“Mrs Turnbull is not a director of the European Australian Business Council and has not been for more than a year,” a spokesman for the Prime Minister said.

“The PM’s parliamentary disclosures reflect this. (Mrs Turnbull) has not spoken directly with either man for several years, and does not recall discussing the funding of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with them.”

He said: “The PM has not discussed this issue with Mr Fitzgerald or Mr Roberts. The government is preserving the Great Barrier Reef for future generations. This initiative will secure jobs and improve the health of the reef. The foundation is the best-placed body to deliver on these goals.”

Asked whose idea the grant was, Mr Turnbull’s spokesman would only say: “The proposal was developed within the Department of the Environment and Energy in consultation with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, Treasury, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.”

The Australian does not suggest the grant was made improperly.

Mr Turnbull has conceded he knows Mr Fitzgerald but says he does not know another Goldman Sachs boss, Keith Tuffley, who was on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation board until he resigned on federal budget day, May 8.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg repeatedly refused to say on 2GB yesterday whether the decision to give the $444m to the foundation without tender was Mr Turnbull’s idea. “It’s the government’s idea and it was one of the major announcements … in the budget because we want to save the Barrier Reef,” he said.

“This is the single largest ever investment in the ­Barrier Reef.”

Kristina Keneally, ALP senator and former NSW Premier says the $444m federal government donation to close associates to ‘protect the Barrier Reef’ is fishy.   Scientists say there is nothing wrong with the reef.

Labor senator Kristina Keneally said: “There is something fishy about this grant.

“How does a prime minister give away $444m of public money without due diligence, competitive tender or grant application?”

“If Malcolm Turnbull and his family has a personal relationship with one or more of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation board members, that’s even more reason (he) should have ensured this grant decision was taken at arm’s length from him, with the highest standards of probity and contestability, so as to give the public confidence in the decision.”

Malcolm Turnbull
Prime Minister, former head of Goldman Sachs Australia 1997-2002.

Lucy Turnbull
Former deputy chairman and director of US Studies Centre 2012-15 and on the board of directors of the centre 2007-15, including a time when both Great Barrier Reef Foundation directors Stephen Fitzgerald and Stephen Roberts were on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre. Also on the board of the European Australian Business Council at the same time as Mr Fitzgerald was a fellow director.

James Brown

The Turnbulls’ son-in-law. A former non-resident fellow at the US Studies Centre.

Stephen Fitzgerald

Former chairman of Goldman Sachs after joining in 1992. Named a managing director in 1998 and a partner in 2002. The current chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation Board’s philanthropy committee. On the board of the European Australian Business Council at the same time as Lucy Turnbull. On the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time Mrs Turnbull was on the board of directors. The PM’s office confirms Mr Fitzgerald may have been hosted by Mrs Turnbull at the Turnbulls’ home.

Stephen Roberts

Former head of Citigroup. Was charged with alleged criminal cartel conduct related to his time at Citigroup. Was chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation philanthropy committee in 2016 and 2017. Resigned from Great Barrier Reef Foundation board in June after he was charged. Was on the council of advisers for the US Studies Centre at the same time as Mrs Turnbull was on the board of directors. The PM’s office confirms he may have been hosted at the Turnbulls’ home.

Alex Turnbull
The Turnbulls’ son. Worked for Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. The PM’s office says Alex Turnbull ‘does not recall meeting Stephen Fitzgerald’ and ‘they did not work together at Goldman Sachs’.

Minister approves $400m grant to 6 people without any consultation

Drought effected farmers living on 3 minute noodles watching their livestock die of starvation have been subjected to more Turn-bullshit as the government hand over $400M to 6 people to support the greens academic army totally reliant on government grants to exist.

An engineered world wide Greenie fictional fear mongering campaign that the barrier reef is in need of major repair requiring $millions has worked. On the factual side, never considered as relevant, is decades of experience from people working and looking after the reef have exposed this cashing up scam to feed the green machine.

The pittance Turn-bullshit has allocated to desperate drought affected farmers of $15,000 assistance upon completing a plethora of bureaucratic paperwork, will not be completed available until March 2019 long after farmers are destitute and their livestock are dead. Available now is the $400 million feeding the greens camp phd’s and cohort bludgers from the unaccountable public purse.

How much long is it going to take for voters to wake up and remove the duopoly establishment problem from power before the new owners move in.

Turnbull’s $444 million barrier reef fraud exposed

Channel Nine’s Karl Stefanovic in cash-for-comment scandal defending Malcom Turnbull’s $444 million fraud

by Shane Dowlingwww.kangaroocourtsaustralia.com

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is in the fight of his life trying to justify his fraudulent awarding of a $444 million grant to the Liberal Party aligned and mining industry backed Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Nine’s Karl Stefanovic has come to Turnbull’s defence on Twitter defending the deal while knowingly concealing that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is a sponsor of Channel 9.

The problem is that the deal it totally indefensible as all protocols were broken which makes Karl Stefanovic’s cash-for-comment routine blatantly obvious. It also raises issues with Nine’s planned merger with Fairfax Media which I will deal with later but firstly some of the background and Stefanovic’s grubby cash-for-comment Tweet.

Read the full story [HERE]

Academics rally around sacked JCU Professor Peter Ridd

by Don Aitkin

I have written a couple of times about Peter Ridd, here and here. Professor Ridd, a well-published academic whose fields of research include coastal oceanography, reef systems and peer review, has been for ten years the Head of the School of Physics at James Cook University (JCU). When he drew attention to what he saw as exaggerations in the way fellow academics at his university were describing the condition of the Great Barrier Reef he was ‘disciplined’ by JCU, told that he was being uncollegial, and that if he did it again he would be charged with serious misconduct. He subsequently wrote to me about this matter, and that email was seen by the University to be a further sign of misconduct. Professor Ridd decided that he had enough, and launched a legal suit against the University, claiming conflict of interest and bias. The conflict of interest might arise because the Vice-Chancellor of the University is also a director of the Australian Institute for Marine Science, some of whose work Professor Ridd had criticised. He has since withdrawn that part of his suit addressing possible bias on the part of the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

Professor Ridd has now been sacked. Not many professors in Australian universities have ever been fired, and sacking should require some extraordinary misbehaviour on the part of the professor. Professor Ridd is not accepting his sacking quietly, and has raised more than a quarter of a million dollars within a week through crowd-funding. There is going to be a court case.

Sacked JCU Professor Peter Ridd has raised $250,000 for legal costs to defend academic free speech

This is a sad event in Australian higher education, for all sorts of reasons, and at its heart is the working of a new and most important engine in academe. In 1990 I gave an address in England, subsequently published in both the UK and Australia, deploring the extent to which research had become the be-all and end-all of appointment, promotion and honour in our universities. That trend has continued, despite the awards for good teaching, which did not exist when I gave that address.

The engine works this way. There is strong pressure on all academics to bring in research grant money for the department, the faculty and university. Those who do it well find their careers advancing quickly. To assist them there are media sections in universities whose job it is to frame the research work of academics in a way that will gain the attention of the media. Such media releases will come with as arresting a headline as the media section can devise. Buzzwords like ‘breakthrough’, ‘crucial’, ‘cutting edge’ and ‘revolution’ will be used. If possible, the staff members will appear on television, with the accompaniment of familiar stock images of laboratories and machines. The staff members will also be aware (or made aware) of the opportunity they have to advance their careers and names through writing another version of their published journal article for The Conversation, a website in which academics can write in more accessible language for an inquiring lay readership. Free from the requirements of journal house-rules, the staff members will be able to lard up their findings, call for urgency in funding and, where that is apposite, demand political attention. The output of the engine is heightened recognition of the name of the university, the academics and their area, and of course the likely prospect of more research money. All those in the engine-room think that they are just doing their jobs. The engine did not exist thirty years ago.

None of this is much of a problem in the more recondite areas of academic research, string theory in physics, for example, or advanced econometrics in the social sciences. But it is a problem, and a rapidly growing one, in areas of research where what is actually the case is contested vigorously by others. An eye has to be kept on the source of the money going to higher education research, which in our country is overwhelmingly the Australian Government. In 2014, not quite four billion dollars was available within the higher education system for research, all of it from the Commonwealth. In addition universities made another billion or thereabouts from consultancy and research for other funders. That is a lot of money. As the last Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1987 I had a little over $30 million to parcel out. The engine has been most effective.

In the last forty years governments have become interested in universities’ finding academic support for what they are proposing or have in place. We are in an era of ‘policy-based evidence’. We are also in an era of a particular political correctness, where it is very difficult indeed to get funds for research if the purpose of the research seems antithetical to current government policy. ‘Curiosity-directed research’ now comes with some serious barriers. Nowhere is this situation clearer than in the case of research on the Great Barrier Reef, in which Professor Ridd has been involved. A bucket-load of money has been devoted to ‘the Reef’, and another half-billion was forecast in the recent Budget, some of which will doubtless go the James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Reef, as is frequently said, is an Australian ‘icon’. An icon is a religious object. Professor Ridd is a scientist, not a priest.

To have people like Professor Ridd decrying the hyperbole with which some research has been couched could imperil future grant money (notwithstanding the recent half-billion), and it would be understandable if academics within JCU have appealed to their Vice-Chancellor to shut Professor Ridd up. Something like this was presumably the reason the late Professor Bob Carter, an internationally distinguished geologist at JCU, was stripped of his adjunct status (which meant he could not use the University Library’s resources, a real penalty). Carter, like Ridd, was concerned to point to the errors of balance and rigour in research and publication on the reef.

There is no likely good outcome from this legal battle. Early on I wrote to the JCU Vice-Chancellor to suggest that she move to settle the issues quickly and away from the court. JCU’s reputation can only worsen as the trial continues, while Professor Ridd will spend his entire time raising money and defending his position. In the meantime his students and colleagues have lost a fine teacher and colleague.

And who is giving attention to the engine, let alone to the engine-room? So far, the major players have remained silent. The Minister, Simon Birmingham, has said nothing, Universities Australia likewise, the NTEU likewise (though it did come to the defence of another professor a few years ago, forced out on what a judge described as a sham redundancy claim). Sacking senior staff who have tried to point out that all is not right with the world is a singular matter, one which, if it passes without comment, can only lead other universities to try and get rid of their own ‘trouble-makers’ the same way. The ability of academics to speak up and out has been one of the universities’ great virtues for at least the last hundred years. They used to be proud of it, too. What is happening at JCU is deeply disturbing to those who value freedom of speech and justified criticism. As the Popper quote at the head of my website reminds us, we learn through disagreement.

 

JCU Professor sacked for blowing the whistle on corrupted climate data

Sacked James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd who blew the whistle on fictitious ‘climate change’ research continues to fight the institution over disciplinary action and now termination of employment.

He has received the same scurrilous treatment as his colleague, the late Professor Bob Carter who also made public the incredibly erroneous and false science behind global warming and its alleged deleterious effect on the Great Barrier Reef.

James Cook Uni Cairns campus gives outspoken climate change sceptic Professor Peter Ridd the heave ho for jeopardising research funds

Both academics questioned the veracity of research and the alleged reef destruction claimed by the leftist academic junta at the Cairns and Townsville campuses.

Both were ostracised and censured for attacking the ‘dodgy’ science which the university academia continuously bleats with the aid of the ABC in order to keep the state and federal grants lining the coffers..

The nitwit PM Turnbull pledged $500 million in the budget to appease the green Mafioso in the hope of sidelining some Green votes and in an effort to keep local federal Liberal member Warren Entsch in the seat of Leichardt.

Both academics for some years have stated almost categorically, ‘there is nothing wrong with the reef’ and ‘climate change’…… is bloody nonsense.

The late and esteemed Professor Bob Carter many years ago disproved the global warming and climate change hoax but was ostracised by his socialist peers and disowned by JCU Townsville.

A crowdfunding page has been re-opened for Professor Ridd’s mounting legal costs. His comments appear below:

Just an update of my battle

On 2 May, 2018, I received a letter from James Cook University (JCU) terminating my employment. JCU have sacked me because I dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef.

Shortly after I went public with the GoFundMe campaign to which you donated in February the university presented me with a further set of misconduct allegations, which alleged that I acted inappropriately by talking about the case and have now ended my employment.

I will be fighting their employment termination, alongside the original 25 charges behind JCU’s ‘final censure’ last year.

As a consequence of the sacking, and the new misconduct allegations, my legal costs have substantially increased. JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me. In the name of honesty and truth in science, we must fight back. We have an excellent legal team and are confident that we can win the legal case.

I feel extremely indebted to all those who have given so generously. I was blown away by the number of people who supported me, and I had hoped that more funding would not be necessary. Sadly, however circumstances have changed.

I have contributed another $15000 of my own money, in addition to the $24000k I have already spent. However, based on the growing complexity of the case, we will need to raise an additional $159000. It is a bit frightening, but we have reopened the GoFundMe site to receive more donations.

You have already contributed generously so all I ask of you is to help spread the word to expand the number of people who are helping.

I know there were many who were unable to donate the first time – including my own Mum – due to the speed we reached the original target of $95K.

For additional background on all the new allegations from JCU, I have uploaded all the documentation so that you can judge JCU’s allegations for yourself if you wish. https://wordpress.com/page/platogbr.wordpress.com/223

In summary, JCU (1) objects to my criticism of the earlier allegations; (2) criticised my involvement with the Institute of Public Affairs; and (3) objects to me not remaining silent. The facts of the matter are simple: (1) the earlier allegations were an unreasonable infringement on my academic freedom, I was well within my rights to criticise JCU; (2) I have never been paid by the IPA, other than some initial support for my legal case and reimbursement for flights and hotels related to speaking arrangements which is normal academic practice; and (3) I am well within my rights, as stated by my employment agreement, to speak publicly about disciplinary proceedings.

 

Thank you,

Peter Ridd

Queensland government to legislate farmers land theft supporting ratbag Greens vegetation fiction

“A true story from the heart of Queensland”

“The farmers of Queensland would like to tell you a true story” – A must view video how this unchallenged dictatorial government is poised to destroy farming in Queensland.

What is the issue?

On the 1st of May the Palaszczuk Government may rush flawed legislation through before MP’s know the truth

The legislation:

  • Locks up 1.7 million hectares of developed farmland with no compensation
  • Bans all future agricultural development in Qld by removing agriculture as a purpose under the planning act
  • Severely restricts other essential management activities like reducing encroachment or controlling woody weeds.

Why has the Government proposed these changes?

The Palaszczuk Government promised the Greens to toughen the rules on the farmers of Qld in return for preferences at the last election.

The Queensland Government has admitted it has not done any analysis of the social and economic impacts of the laws, and had no intention of doing so.

Watch  this video NOW!

Visit this site – www.atruestory.com.au/ – to support our farmers from establishment persecution for votes.

EHP calls tenders to bulldoze huge dam wall near Cooktown; 30,000 tonnes of potential sediment runoff

The fallout from the 2016 acquisition of Springvale Station at Lakeland continues after the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection called for tenders to demolish a 1200 megalitre irrigation dam on the property.

Last year the EPH was caught out when a neighbour complained of long silt plumes found in the permanent East Normanby River after the department began siphoning water from the $400,000 dam into the river.

The river eventually drains into Princess Charlotte Bay and onto the Great Barrier Reef.

This massive irrigation dam costing $400,000 to construct will soon be bulldozed by EHP, by removing an estimated 30,000 cubic metres of earth in the wall. An engineer predicts this soil could eventually end up in the river system and be deposited onto the Great Barrier Reef.

 

The water was left to run across 150 metres of soil between the dam bank and the river, gouging one metre channels in the earth creating many hundreds of tonnes of sediment which flowed into the river.

A local engineer estimated the wall would contain 30,000 cubic metres of compacted earth, when removed could eventually end up in the river system.

The hydrologist who designed the dam for the previous owners said the dam wall was sound and in no way would have breached after heavy rain events.

The EHP Minister at the time, Stephen Miles, claimed the design of the dam’s construction was unknown and therefore considered the wall “unsafe.”

Refuting the Minister’s assertion, the hydrologist, Geoff Benjamin, of Mareeba, said the wall remained intact and sound after 300 mm fell in one night, before the wall construction was finally completed.

“The dam was designed with an effective spillway and fish-way, however construction work was forced to cease due to early wet-season rains,” Mr Benjamin said.

“Although I did not visit the site when work ceased, I believe that the embankment height was about 1 to 1.5 m below the intended final design elevation.

“At this elevation a natural depression on the eastern side provides a broad, natural spillway so that the embankment would not be compromised in the event of intense storm run-off; which is in fact, exactly what occurred when Cyclone Etta, I think, passed straight over the property in January 2014, reportedly dropping about 300 mm of rain over-night!

“The statement about ‘unacceptable safety risk’ would therefore seem totally baseless.  Unfortunately such uninformed, alarmist comments seem to be what we’ve come to expect from this particular Minister.”

Defending the decision to demolish the valuable water asset, home to innumerable birdlife and other aquatic wildlife, the EHP claimed the design was unknown, which has been ridiculed by Mr Benjamin.

“Likewise the assertion that ‘the status of its design and capacity is unknown’ is inaccurate, since I provided details of the design to one of the Minister’s departmental officers not long after EHP acquired the Springvale property,” Mr Benjamin said.

The EHP claimed it acquired Springvale to prevent sediment runoff into the Great Barrier Reef catchment, however the Chief Scientist for Queensland, Dr Geoff Garrett, told a meeting of landowners at Lakeland prior to the property purchase there was no measurable sediment runoff from the Upper Normanby catchment.

Minister Miles ignored this advice and continued with the purchase, wasting $7 million of taxpayers funds and removed 4000 head of cattle from the local economy.

The property is being divided into yet more unnecessary national park with the balance being given to an indigenous group.

Tenders to decommission the dam were called on January 24 and will close on March 5, 2018.

JCU censures its own Professor for telling the truth “… there is nothing wrong with the Barrier Reef…”

The Australian Institute of Marine Studies has been caught out telling porkies….

by Don Aitkin

Well, the pressure to conform is happening again, and at Professor Bob Carter’s old university, James Cook University in Townsville. The late Bob Carter was censured by JCU some years ago for ridiculing the Global Warming  theory.     This time the proposed villain is JCU professor of physics, Peter Ridd, whose interests include coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments upon coral reefs, past and future climates and atmospheric modelling. I have met Peter Ridd, and I know something about his work. He has been head of the Department of Physics for ten years. His intellectual reach is wider than my short summary here, but I have put in what gives him some status in the world of global warming.

Professor Ridd’s comments on Sky news, to the effect that “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies… The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

JCU Professor Peter Ridd said that a paper by JCU scientists foretelling the end of the reef was simply ‘laughable’. Bleaching is a natural event, and occurred long before there was human activity anywhere near the reef. What is more, reefs recover, sometimes quite quickly. The University is competing for research funds thus it has to create a doomsday scenario.

He has been in the news before, drawing attention to the need to change the peer review system, and to what he sees as exaggerated claims about the dangers that threaten the Great Barrier Reef, alleging that scientists or spokesmen for scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and government organisations like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) were not behaving in a scientifically scrupulous way in announcing new claims and about danger. He was not alone in saying these things. The chairman of GBRMPA himself protested that headlines saying that ’93 per cent of the reef is ‘critically dead’ or that 35 per cent or even 50 per cent of the entire reef is now gone’ were rubbish. A former chairman said that ‘environmentalist were ‘exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain’. Ridd said that a paper by JCU scientists foretelling the end of the reef was simply ‘laughable’. Bleaching is a natural event, and occurred long before there was human activity anywhere near the reef. What is more, reefs recover, sometimes quite quickly.

Nonetheless, the university told him he was ‘not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues’. Do it again, he was told, and we’ll try you for ‘serious misconduct’. I’ve written about this before, and indeed the above is an introduction to the news that JCU indeed decided to discipline Professor Ridd, and started the process in late August last year. What for? The University’s statement is that it was disturbed by Professor Ridd’s comments on Sky news, to the effect that ‘We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies… The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.’ Such statements, said the University, were ‘not in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth’. Further, his comments had denigrated AIMS and were ‘not respectful and courteous’. In a letter tabled with the court, the University said that his comments could damage the reputation of AIMS and the University’s relationships with it.

On this occasion, Professor Ridd decided he had had enough, and launched his own court case against the CEO, claiming conflict of interest, apprehended bias and actual bias. It happens that the University’s Vice-Chancellor is a director of AIMS, which produces an obvious conflict of interest. The University then told Ridd he was not to ‘disclose or discuss these matters with media or in any other public forum’. His lawyers pointed out that either the University was incompetent or it was guided by bias, which the University’s lawyers denied.

Peter Ridd was kind enough to write to me  about the alleged misconduct involved in talking to the media about the misconduct allegation, and later alerted me to the fact that there was deemed to be further misconduct  involved in writing to me! I wish him well in all of this, which is so unnecessary, and so inimical to the cause of scholarship, argument and the advancement of knowledge.

I can appreciate the dilemma facing the Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University, for there is no doubt that research grant money is really important. I have to say that I did not have a comparable problem in my eleven years in the role, despite the pressure on everyone to get grant money if they could. Nonetheless, there is no doubt where I think the right is. A scientist who says that other people’s work is flawed has to show cause. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef that is not hard to do. There has been a lot of loud noise based on small pieces of work. It is not widely understood that the Reef is a vast system, and that it is not closely monitored. You would need hundreds, thousands, of researchers and assistants to do that. And there are lots of natural and cyclic causes for changes to the Reef’s coral. These events have happened before, and they will happen again. The correct response from those he has criticised is to respond in the proper way, show that Ridd is wrong, and that their work can withstand his criticism.

To the best of my knowledge that has not happened. Instead, Professor Ridd has been attacked in an ad hominem way. It seems to me utterly wrong for his own University to try to ‘discipline’ him so that he does not criticise others. That is not what science is about. It doesn’t matter what relationships JCU has with AIMS. If the AIMS work is poor, or inflated claims have been made about the importance of its research, the University ought to be able to point that out, and suggest that better work ought to be done, or that claims should be more subdued.

Ah, but this is the Reef, an icon of the environmental movement. And there is a lot of money about for ‘research’ that is ‘consistent’ with the notion that doom is at hand. Like Professor Ridd, I think that the University has gone down utterly the wrong track, and the sooner it departs from it the better. As it happens, the book I referred to at the beginning of this essay, No End of a Lesson, gives instances of other high-handed behaviour from Vice-Chancellors. They are not emperors, and should never give the impression that they think they are.

A healthy Great Barrier Reef spawns fictitious, costly scare campaigns

The never-ending battles of the Coral Sea

by Viv Forbes, science writer

For at least 50 years Australian taxpayers and other innocents have supported a parasitic industry in academia, bureaucracy, law, media and the tax-exempt Green Alarm “Charities”, all studying, regulating, inspecting and writing about yet another “imminent threat to Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef.”

The Queensland Labor Party Government is about to embark on another reef-runoff onslaught against coastal farmers that is intended to close down farming along the entire coastline, from Cooktown to Brisbane.

It has become the never-ending battle of the Coral Sea.

The threats change, but there is always a doomsday forecast – Crown-of-Thorns, oil drilling, fishing, cane farming, coastal shipping, global warming, ocean acidity, coral bleaching, port dredging, chemical and fertiliser runoff, coal transport, river sediments, loss of world heritage status etc. Every recycled scare, magnified by the media and parroted by politicians, generates more income for the alarm industry, usually at the expense of taxpayers, consumers or local industries.

The reality is that sea creatures would starve in pure water – all marine life needs nutrients, salts and minerals. These come from other life forms, from decomposing rocks and organic matter carried to the sea by rivers, from dissolving atmospheric gases, or from delta and shelf sediments stirred up by floods, cyclones, dredging or coastal shipping. No one supports over-use of toxic man-made chemicals, but well-run cane, cattle and coal companies can co-exist with corals.

Conservation bodies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority conjure up doomsday scare campaigns for a healthy Barrier Reef to attract more funding from inept government

Corals first appeared 500 million years ago and have proven to be one of Earth’s great survivors. They outlasted the Carboniferous Forests, the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions, the dinosaurs, the mammoths, the Neanderthals and the Pleistocene cycles of ice age and warming. They thrive in warm tropical water, cluster around hot volcanic fumaroles and survive massive petroleum spills, natural oil seeps, tidal waves and volcanic dust. They have even recolonised the Montebello Island waters devastated by atomic bomb testing in the 1950’s.

The ENSO oscillation of blobs of warm Pacific water which caused recent coral bleaching can be identified in historical records for at least 400 years. Corals have survived El Nino warmings for thousands of years and they will probably outlast Homo Alarmism as Earth proceeds into the next glacial epoch.

See the Supercorals:
https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/supercoral.png

Corals do not rely on computer models of global temperature to advise them – they read the sea level thermometer which falls and rises as the great ice sheets come and go.

In the warming phase like the one just ending, ice melts, sea levels rise and the reef that houses the corals may get drowned. Corals have two choices – build their reef higher or just float south/inshore and build a new reef (like the Great Barrier Reef) in shallower, cooler water. When islands sink beneath rising oceans, corals may build their own coral atolls as fast as the water rises.

Then when the cold era returns, ice sheets grow, sea levels fall, and the warm era coral reefs get stranded on the new beaches and coastal plains. Usually the process is slow enough to allow the coral polyps to float into deeper warmer water closer to the equator and build another reef.

This eminently sensible policy of “move when you have to” has proved a successful survival policy for the corals for 500 million years.

Humans should copy the corals – “forget the computer climate models but watch real data like actual sea levels and . . . move when you have to.

%d bloggers like this: