Inconvenient truths ignored by the climate propaganda machine.

“LEAVE fossil fuels in the ground,” Greens leader Christine Milne says. “Renewable energy is the future.” “Coal is a stranded asset.” “It’s driving global warming.” “It’s a huge risk to the planet,” she adds, lest we miss the point.

Milne’s prescription for a vibrant Australian economy includes “keeping the renewable energy target at 41,000 gigawatt-hours”, “stopping new coalmines”, “no coal-seam gas’’ and “no new ports”. “Jobs will come from green energy,” Milne assures us.

She could have added, there are fairies at the bottom of her garden.

Clearly Milne is unaware of the cost to California, Europe and Britain of their ultra green ­embrace.

The Golden State’s energy ­prices are 40 per cent above the US national average, plunging its manufacturing and agricultural regions into depression, with one in five living in poverty.

Researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University have found renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green one created.

A study by Verso Economics commissioned by the Scottish government concluded that for every job in the wind industry, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere.

For the average person, this is what is so confusing about the climate change debate.

Conformists tell us one thing, but the reality is different. In 2009, when chief scientist Penny Sackett threatened we had only five years to avoid “disastrous global warming”, we were alarmed. Now we realise she was being emotional.

When climate commissioner Tim Flannery said that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”, it was sobering, but soon we were donating to flood victims and ­suspected he’d dreamt it up to scare us.

Climate scientists have been telling us for decades with “95 per cent certainty” that temperatures would move in lock step with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We have been force-fed on climate change being “extremely likely” (is that a scientific term?) to be the product of human activity.

Yet, with the highest human emissions of greenhouse gases in history, temperatures have gone nowhere for 18 years.

We were warned the heat was stored in the deep oceans and would return with a vengeance. Now, 3500 Argo buoys and NASA can’t find it.

Repeatedly proved wrong, the voice of authority demands silence from rational doubters.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, singing from the green song sheet, wants governments to turn their backs on coal, the cheapest, most efficient energy source on the planet. We are warned of tipping points and catastrophe but offered no scientific proof, just speculation.

Governments are falling meekly into line, with the Europeans boasting they will embrace an RET of 40 per cent by 2030. Sitting at 17 per cent, the EU is unlikely to meet even its 20 per cent target by 2020, let alone 80 per cent to 95 per cent by 2050.

If talk could reduce emissions, plants would be gasping. But rhetoric is different from reality. Some of Europe’s dirtiest coal-fired power stations are receiving subsidies to extend their lifespan. Germany is building 10 coal-fired plants to generate cheaper power. Whatever the dreamers say, economics will drive this debate, not climate theory.

The recent IPCC Synthesis Report is primarily a political document designed to push governments into signing a tougher global emissions abatement agreement in Paris next year. In the bizarre world of climate change, the plan is to legally oblige countries to put forward their proposals and report on progress.

However, no penalty will be imposed if countries miss targets or renege on commitments. It’s ­appearances that count.

In painting the bleakest picture they can, IPCC authors have projected CO2 levels reaching 1000 parts per million in 2100, largely through coal combustion, despite BP in its Energy Outlook 2035 stating, “Coal is expected to be the slowest growing major fuel, with demand rising 1.1 per cent a year by 2035”, because production costs rise as extraction goes deeper.

The IPCC case smacks of desperation. With improved energy efficiency and the growing use of nuclear power, the scenario it paints is highly improbable. Typically, it ignores the growing gap between climate models and observations. It overlooks the slowing of sea-level rises or that sea temperatures are within natural variability. It fails to mention that the extent of Antarctic sea ice is the highest since records began.

Nowhere are we told of glacier studies that confirm the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were as warm as today. The pause is discounted, with the IPCC relying on a longer-term upward trend.

Inconvenient truths are not permitted in this alarmist report. The endorsement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will make it harder for Australia to hold on to its comparative advantage of cheap coal, but our economic and business self-interest must come before international popularity, particularly given the case to do otherwise is so shaky.

While the debate over the RET and Direct Action shows all sides of politics remain hostage to the climate change cartel, an ABC radio poll asked: “Is the IPCC right that on current fossil use ‘projec­tories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?” The result? Of 3101 votes counted, 91 per cent voted no, only 9 per cent yes.

Enough said.

Maurice Newman chairs the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Committee. These views are his own.

Originally posted in The Australian

The War on Coal

Anti Coal Activists Strategy Exposed!!

Back in 2011 A COALITION of environmental activists released an extraordinary secret plan to ruin Australia's coal export boom by disrupting and delaying key projects and infrastructure. 

The radical environmentalist group Greenpeace spearheaded a push to block the expansion of Australia’s coal export industry, with “generous support from the Rockefeller Family Fund”, a charitable foundation based in New York.

The strategy included mounting legal challenges to up to a dozen key mines and exploiting the Lock The Gate movement against coal-seam gas to put pressure on governments to block mining.

  
The organizers’ draft plan says that it aims to raise funds in the United States as well as Australia to bankroll the campaign. Another foreign group involved in the campaign is CoalSwarm.

The campaign plans to build on the anti-coal-seam gas protests and to inflate concerns that mining will threaten the Great Barrier Reef.

But its overriding objective is to massively reduce the exports of coal to India and China, which import Australian coal to produce low-cost electricity needed to develop their emerging economies. Why? In order to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

The proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement, declared that 2012 and 2013 were critical years to stop tens of billions of dollars of investment and says the aim of the strategy is to "disrupt and delay" projects "while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry and continually building the power of the movement to win more".

The document - which is believed to have been written by Greenpeace Australia Pacific's John Hepburn and CoalSwarm's Bob Burton - issues a call to arms for coal activists nationwide.

The document names philanthropic consultant Sam Hardy and a foundation set up by Wotif founder and Greens donor Graeme Wood on the cover.

It outlines that up to $5.92 million would be used to fund litigation to stop coal port expansions, major rail lines and new mines; to wage a "battle of Galilee" to stop "mega-mines" in central Queensland's Galilee Basin and expose it as a "globally significant carbon bomb".

The strategy proposes hiring staff to conduct "industry scandal research" to help change the story of coal so that, instead of being seen as the backbone of the economy and a creator of jobs and prosperity, the coal sector is seen as a "destructive industry that destroys the landscape and communities, corrupts our democracy, and threatens the global climate". It also proposes pouring funds into "symbolically contesting coal industry conferences" and annual general meetings in a bid to increase investor uncertainty, to lead to delays and higher finance costs on projects, as well as involving health professionals - "among the most trusted people in the Australian community" - in the campaign.

The anti-coal movement's document details a six-pronged strategy, for which the first priority is to lodge legal challenges against coal port expansions in Queensland and NSW, two major rail lines - particularly the rail line to the Galilee Basin that would unlock a series of major mines - and up to a dozen key mines.

Link to Report: Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom



Let's look at who is involved in the Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom!!

Greenpeace 

Greenpeace is the largest environmental organization in the world, with an international membership of over 3 million and offices in over 40 countries. Forbes magazine once described it as “a skillfully managed business” with full command of “the tools of direct mail and image manipulation — and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.” But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its “non-profit” status and its U.S. tax exemption. In other countries, however, Greenpeace has not been as lucky: Both Canada and New Zealand have revoked the organization’s non-profit status, noting that the group’s overly politicized agenda no longer has any “public benefit.”

 

• Greenpeace campaigns against all forms of energy production except for wind and solar. Unfortunately, a whopping 98% of the worlds energy supply comes from sources other than wind and solar, This is not likely to change anytime soon due to the cost, both in dollars and in raw materials, required to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays.
• Greenpeace claims to be dedicated to saving the whales. They are happy to exploit the emotional impact of the slaughter of these noble creatures to raise funds and recruit members, but less interested in acting to end the practice of whaling worldwide. In principle, Greenpeace is not even opposed to whaling.
• Greenpeace is against the use of numerous chemical substances including, but not limited to, elemental chlorine, one of the building blocks of life on our planet. Considering that chlorine is responsible for providing much of the world with clean drinking water, and the Earth’s population with some 85 percent of all pharmaceuticals and vitamins, this hard-line stance must be considered both uninformed and inhumane.
• Greenpeace is unwavering in its conviction that the unforseen health and environmental consequences of planting genetically engineered crops that can grow in hostile environments will forever outweigh any potential humanitarian benefits. While they mount protests aimed at ripping these mutant "Frankenfoods" from the soil and the supermarket shelves, impoverished populations around the globe suffer from the preventable pandemic of malnutrition.
• Greenpeace remains bent on destroying the aquaculture industry while they continue to raise alarm about the status of wild fish stocks. Using the apocalyptic image of oceans picked clean of all aquatic organisms, Greenpeace keeps raking in the donations while battling against an industry that is already taking great pains to ensure its sustainability.

Instead of working hand-in-hand with business owners to forge a path towards a sustainable future like other less myopic environmental organizations, Greenpeace’s dogmatic adherence to the precautionary principile  causes them to overlook the fatal flaws inherent in their own radical policies.

Greenpeace has spread worldwide, the Australian arm of their organization has many followers. It is this part of their organization that created the "Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom"

Rockefeller Family Fund

Rockefeller Family Fund is a U.S.-based, family-led public charity that initiates, cultivates, and funds strategic efforts to promote a sustainable, just, free, and participatory society.

Since 2006, RFF has focused its Environment program almost exclusively on climate change.  Their program emphasizes public education on the risks of global warming and implementation of sound solutions. RFF is interested in the development of initiatives designed to enact aggressive policies at the state and national levels to reduce carbon emissions; disrupt the coal life cycle from mining and burning to ash disposal and exporting; bring diverse and compelling new voices into the climate debate; and examine how special interests are distorting science and delaying constructive steps to deal with this impending global crisis.

There are several Rockefeller Funds/Foundations, all traced back to the famous Rockefeller Family in the USA , who made their millions on big OIL!!

Coal Swarm

 The purpose of CoalSwarm is to create a collaborative information clearinghouse for the worldwide citizens’ movement to address the impacts of coal and move to cleaner sources of energy. Containing over 7,000 articles on coal-related topics posted on the SourceWatch wiki, this open-source reference provides a constantly expanding body of information that anyone can utilize and contribute to.

The CoalSwarm wiki was launched in early 2008 and later that year was accepted as a project of Earth Island Institute, an incubator for innovative projects in ecology and social justice. Affiliation with Earth Island Institute gave CoalSwarm access to logistical resources and 501(c)3 tax status, allowing the project to receive tax-deductable donations as well as foundation support. In addition to donations by private citizens, CoalSwarm has received grants from the Carlin Family Fund, the Energy Foundation, the European Climate Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Sierra Club, and the Wallace Global Fund.

Bob Burton - one of the creators of the "Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom" is involved in Coal Swarm.

John Hepburn

John grew up in Central Queensland where his father worked as an engineer in the coal industry. He completed degrees in business and engineering from the Queensland University of Technology and worked for several years as a production engineer making components for the coal, gas and oil industries, before making a career about-turn. After establishing several successful non-profit recycling businesses, John was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study community based environmental programs in the US and Europe. He has worked on a wide range of environmental issues for over fifteen years including ten years at Greenpeace Australia Pacific where he performed a wide variety of roles including managing the climate and energy campaign, the genetic engineering campaign, and the outreach and mobilization department. During this time, he also worked for Greenpeace International as an advisor to campaign teams in India, China and Japan.

In 2006 he co-ordinated the successful Greenpeace International campaign to prevent the imminent commercial release of genetically engineered rice into China.

John is also involved in The Sunrise Project - another anti fossil fuel organization. The Sunrise Project is also heavily involved with aligning with some of the Traditional Owners who are opposed to the Carmichael Coal Mine in the Galilee Basin. These Traditional Owners have apparently accepted money for their help!

 Sam Hardy

Sam Hardy is also involved with the "Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom"

Dr Samantha Hardy is a campaign strategist, an experienced social and environmental policy advisor and an expert in philanthropy, grant making and major gift fundraising.

Sam worked with WWF-Australia in Brisbane and Sydney as a Fundraising Manager where she lead major fundraising and advocacy campaigns to save the Great Barrier Reef and the forests of Borneo. Sam also worked as Head of Advancement at the University of Queensland’s Faculty of Business Economics and Law where she managed a gift budget of $18 million. Over her 15-year public policy and community campaigning career, Sam has advised the British Cabinet, the Queensland Premiers Office, the Commission for Children and Young People and numerous intergovernmental and non-profit organisations on priority social, economic and environmental policy interventions and campaigns. One significant policy achievement was her advice to Patricia Hewitt MP, UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women, which lead to new laws to give parents with young children and disabled children the right to request flexible working from their employer, a right that has now been enshrined into European law and has been adopted as a policy position around the world.

Sam has also provided strategic research and advice to the Graeme Wood Foundation who have also been mentioned in the "Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom"

 

Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom

The anti-coal-mining alliance launched this project at its first Australian National Coal Convergence conference, which was held in the Blue Mountains.

 The alliance included the following groups:


Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE). One of its key personnel, Mark Ogge, is on the anti-coal campaign’s Strategy Advisory Group. In 2008, BZE presented its “Transition to a Zero Carbon Future”, outlining its ambitious “coal switch” philosophy, under which the state of Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions would be slashed by 50 per cent in three years.


GetUp!  The prominent left-wing online campaign website.

United Voice, A large services-based trade union affiliated to the ALP. One of its representatives to the anti-coal campaign is Holly Creenaune, an activist with Friends of the Earth (FOE), who co-authored an article promoting a “low-carbon future, focusing on green renewable energy sources and smarter energy use”, in FOE’s Chain Reaction magazine.  A second United Voice representative to the campaign is Ellie Smith, who signed an advertisement on the Gold Coast Greens web page in January 2011 calling for volunteers for a “Nature refuge and mining conference organizer … to halt coal production expansion in Queensland”.

The Pew Environment Group, This conservation group is associated with the US-based Pew Charitable Trusts, whose Barry Traill is on the anti-coal Program Reference Group.

Lock the Gate Alliance Inc. Partly organized by Drew Hutton, a long-time activist, academic, campaigner and past political candidate for the Queensland Greens.

The Environmental Defender’s Office Queensland Inc., Which is part of a nation-wide network of nine non-profit, non-government community legal centres working in the area of public interest planning and environment law. The centre, which is dedicated to fighting “climate change”, receives funding from “Commonwealth and State Community Legal Service Funding Programs and Queensland EPA project funding,” as well as from donations.

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW,  Founded in 1955, one of the spokespersons, Armidale resident Carmel Flint, has also contributed to the anti-coal-mining campaign strategy. She appeared before a Senate inquiry into coal-seam gas in Narrabri, representing a diverse coalition of environmental groups including the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, the Wilderness Society and Friends of the Earth. The Nature Conservation Council of NSW is a non-profit, non-government organization representing more than 100 community environment groups across NSW.

Mineral Policy Institute, an Australian think-tank aimed at holding companies accountable on environmental issues.

The Australia Institute, whose executive director Dr Richard Denniss is also on the anti-coal Program Advisory Group.

Mackay Conservation Group,  is the peak environmental organization in the Mackay region in Queensland, Australia. The organization focuses its conservation and environmental protection efforts on the Central Queensland Coast and Brigalow Belt bioregions in the area from Bowen in the north, west to Clermont and South to St Lawrence, and the off-shore islands of the Great Barrier Reef.
Mackay Conservation Group receives some funding for specific projects from government, and relies on volunteers and donations for its advocacy work. A non profit organization with tax deductibility status, Mackay Conservation Group is run by a volunteer Committee.
 
Also involved are : United Voice, Capricornia Conservation Council ,  Environment Victoria and the Climate Action Network Australia.



Below:  excerpts taken from the "Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom" document!!

 

*************************

The war on COAL has only just begun!

Let's set the RECORD STRAIGHT, do not be mislead by the GREEN LIES.

We have shown that a very large part of our community is in support of the advancement of projects in our region, in particular the Abbot Point expansion.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney addressed our Supporters Rally on Wednesday the 17th September, so we consider that we are fairly up to date.

However green groups have come out with new objections and outright lies about proposed plans proving that their real motive is - they want coal left in the ground, mining stopped and for us and our community to starve.

In this media statement on the 18th September, 2014 from the Fight for the Reef website, they are clearly stating that they have not seen the proposal. This is correct as it had not been released to the public yet.
 

On their Facebook page also on the 18th September, 2014 they shared this meme which claims that they know where the dredge spoil disposal site is, supposedly showing it to be in the worst possible place they could dream up. Their lies and their emotional appeals encourages their followers to donate money to fund court cases and the like. This just proves how untruthful they really are. Disgraceful and deceitful come to mind.

The only information that anyone has, is from this statement in the link below from Jeff Seeney.


Statement




A map of the Abbot Point Beneficial Reuse Strategy area is available to download from the link below:


Map

Only by working together can we succeed as a Community, as a State and as a Nation united.

Thank you for your continuing support for a fair deal.

Signed:

Abbot Point Expansion Supporters

Dredging is Dredging

As we wait to find out exactly where the dredged spoil from Abbot Point will go. It appears it will definately go on land instead of being dumped back in the ocean.  Will the Whitsunday tourism operators who were so against the dumping offshore at first, now support the expansion with their full support?? ( especially the one that flew half way around the world to ask the Deutsche Bank not to fund the expansion.)

We wait in anticipation for their approval :-)

In the mean time, it is interesting to note that the Green groups are now putting their efforts into trying to stop the onland disposal site, even though , it has not been officially decided yet.  The Caley Valley wetlands is their target.  And, ofcourse, we also know that they are also attacking dredging itself, saying that even dredging (not just dumping of spoil) is dangerous for the reef and all the critters in the ocean.

Source: Dredging Today

If this is so, the tourism operators better watch out, cause we know that there is some dredging going on in their own backyard right now.  Why is it that nothing is being said about this?? Afterall, it is dredging and dredging is dredging no matter where it is done or for what type of industry.  And,  there are significant environmental areas of importance around the Airlie developments!!

The Port of Airlie is still dredging and also Abell Point Marina.  

Let's take a look at the Port of Airlie:

Dredging commenced on the 2nd July 2014, and was expected to take up to 3 months to complete.  The proponent determined that dredging could not be completed by the end of the approved  'dredging timeframe' on 31st August 2014.  Hence an extension of the dredging timeframe is required.

"Construction channel dredging should take place between March and August in any year to minimise impacts on seagrasses and corals and to avoid the cyclone season.  For the year 2014, maintenance dredging may be undertaken until 30 September."

Source: Co-ordinator Generals Report - Extension to Dredging Timeframe


So, there are seagrasses and corals which are of a concern.  And, they are allowed to extend the timeframe for dredging outside the original dates right up to the 30th September.

It is also interesting to note that prior to the Port of Airlie's construction, contaminated sediments were found in the form of TBT (Tributyl Tin).  Why was the dredging allowed.  The spoil had to go on land because of this.  But, as we know dredging stirs up sediment and creates a plume as shown in the photo below taken in 2008 during dredging.  How much of this contaminated sediment spread throughout the Whitsunday region.  Is this the cause of some of their water quality issues?? 

Just as a footnote:  The Abbot Point area to be dredged has been tested and has been deemed safe for dredging.

Source: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40370/1/TBT.pdf



Abell Point Marina:

Abell Point Marina is currently dredging too.  The dredged spoil will be relocated to the land and will be used to make a parkland at the marina.  Still, once again, dredging is dredging. Why have we not heard much about this in the media??  There are significant areas also around this marina.  Seagrasses, corals, dugongs etc.

"There are plans for dredging inside the marina walls to depths never experienced in the history of the marina. With berthing for super yachts up to 60m, this will enhance berthing capabilities while providing real opportunity to strengthen Abell Point Marina’s position as a super yacht destination."

 Source: Dredging Today
             Abell Point Marina Dredging Project Commences

Abell Point Marina provides a modified soft bottom habitat within the marina basin and hard substrate habitat in the form of pontoons, plylons and rock walls.  Adjacent waters also feature soft bottomed habitats with rocky outcrops.  The nearest coral reef habitat is Rosearic Shoal, about 9klm offshore from the Marina.

Seagrass habitat occurs about 500-700 metres to the west of the Marina and surveys of this seagrass have identified dugong feeding trails and observed dugong feeding..  Some species of marine turtle would also be expected to feed on seagrass in the area.

Dolphins have also been observed in the Marina and may be attracted by activity, as well as fish that are present in the Marina.

Source: Department of the Environment

So, dredging is dredging. Seagrass and corals and dugongs and turtles are evident in the surroundings of the Marinas.  

How can this be any different to the Abbot Point Dredging? How come nothing has been said about this is in the media??  

As dredging is dredging and all ports , marinas etc need to dredge from time to time, we think that the Whitsunday Tourism Operators should show their support for the Abbot Point expansion. It is only a matter of time before the Green groups turn their attention to stopping all dredging.  That means all industries will be impacted along the east coast of Queensland.

Also of interest is the fact that there will be dredging for the Shute Harbour Marina Resort. No mention of that by any of the Green groups either!!

Source: Environmental Impact Statement - Shute Harbour Marina Resort
             Shute Harbour Marina Resort

It's the science, not the reef, that is being polluted.

By Walter Starck - posted Monday, 8 September 2014 in On Line Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate.

In the fable about the boy who cried wolf the villagers quickly decided the boy was lying and ceased to respond to his alarms. It seems modern day journalists must be much more gullible than those ancient villagers. Every year for almost a half-century the news media have breathlessly reported alarmist claims of imminent threats to the existence of the Great Barrier Reef. Despite the fact that all have proved to be fictitious, trivial or short lived fluctuation of nature, the phony alarms never seem to lose credibility with news reporters or even provoke any investigation.

The latest such instance has involved uncritical propagation of alarmist claims regarding the threat from some additional dredging of an existing dredged shipping channel in connection with expansion of the coal loading terminal at Abbott Point in central Queensland. (See: BATTLE FOR THE REEF, reported by Marian Wilkinson and presented by Kerry O'Brien, broadcast on ABC 4 Corners Monday 18 August 2014)

Only a modicum of investigation would reveal that all of the ports along the Queensland coast have been dredged and require periodic re-dredging to maintain their entrance channels. The GBR itself is many km offshore and no detriment to the reef attributable to coastal dredging has ever been documented. A scattering of low diversity inshore reefs does occur in the region but these are restricted to rocky outcrops where wave action prevents sediment build-up and these reefs are comprised of a limited range of silt tolerant coral species.

Most of the inshore sea floor of the GBR lagoon is heavily blanketed by fine sediments accumulated over millennia. This is a windy coast and wave action resuspends the top layers of sediment every time there is a strong blow. These are naturally very turbid waters and the turbidity from dredging is only localised and short lived. The most noticeable ongoing effect of dredging is that the dredged channels create a more favourable habitat for fishes and a noticeably better fishing area than the naturally flat silted sea floor through which they are constructed. The port dredging amounts to not much more than moving some mud and sand from one place to another of similar substrate.

In the matter of the dredging at Abbott Point alternatives are suggested but not examined. One is pumping the dredge spoil onto the land but this would reguire the destruction of a large area of coastal wetlands with much greater environmental impact than simply moving it to similar sediment bottom nearby. Another suggested possibility has been to extend the existing 3 km long loading wharf farther offshore into deeper water but this would entail greater cyclone risk and much higher cost.

Environmentalists always prefer hypothetical solutions to imaginary problems, at least so long as these remain only theoretical or uneconomic. They advocated aquaculture, tree farms and biofuels until they became a reality. Now they oppose them.

Despite incessant claims of dire threats to the GBR, it is in fact in excellent condition. Fishing pressure is at less than 1% of the average sustainable level for reefs cited by the most recent and comprehensive global survey of coral reefs. Tourism only regularly visits less than two dozen of the more than 2500 named reefs which comprise the GBR. Nutrients and agrichemicals from land runoff are at trace levels and far below any concentrations known to have harmful effects. They are also well below the levels commonly found in our own food and their usage in the GBR catchment area has decreased over the past two decades. The warming and reduction in alkalinity (misleadingly called ocean "acidification") predicted for the end of the century due to climate change would in fact only result in levels that now occur naturally in other regions where reefs thrive and even reach their peaks of biodiversity. Severe cyclone frequency is not increasing and has been much lower over the past century than the previous one. Coral bleaching events are in line with past occurrences as evidenced by the characteristic scars they leave in coral skeletons and crown-of-thorns likewise as evidenced by the varying frequency of their characteristic spines in reef sediments.

Why then are all the reef "experts" so alarmed? For a start expertise is based on facts and facts speak for themselves. When we have to be told someone is an expert they probably aren't. Then too, our actual understanding of reef biology remains very limited. There is much we don't know and much of what we think we know is simply wrong. In the 1970s and 80s reef researchers were beginning to make good progress in our knowledge of reefs; but, since then basic research has largely ceased. Most research now focuses on environmental concerns and most of these are only hypothetical possibilities, not demonstrable problems. Unfortunately though, when funding is obtained to investigate a possible problem it is unlikely that the finding will be that there isn't one. The usual result is that the situation is found to be uncertain and more research is called for.

We now have a whole generation of researchers whose entire experience of the reef has been in the context of investigating environmental "problems" and they see every variation of nature as evidence of some threat. As the Law of the Instrument states, ifthe only tool you have is a hammer it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.

Worse yet, the academic system from which all researchers derive has itself become the very font of political correctness and PC has come to encompass environmental correctness. By this diktat environmental concerns are morally beyond question, any attempt at objectivity is a delusion and scientific ethics are subordinate to some higher truth known to all right thinking people to be politically correct. In short the science itself has become corrupted.

One widely cited recent example of this from reef research has been the claim that the expanded green zones on the GBR have resulted in a doubling of coral trout numbers on the protected reefs. This arose from claims made in a press release issued by the lead research institution involved in the study but is inconsistent with abundant other evidence including that which is presented in the report itself. In the actual study the claim of a doubling of fish on protected reefs appears to rest on a single example from among 8 reef areas surveyed and that area had the lowest level to begin and lowest difference between fished and unfished reefs. In 5 of the 7 other areas the protected reefs actually showed a decline in coral trout numbers. In the remaining two areas no statistically significant change was found. On fished reefs, three areas showed increases in biomass while 5 showed declines. This is clearly not the "extraordinary" 2-fold increase in protected areas that was bannered in the press release and widely reported in the media. Such natural variability is in fact common between reefs and over time on the same reefs. While one might excuse this as only the result of an overzealous copy writer in the PR department no effort was made to correct this grossly misleading claim.

Another recent and widely reported study claims a halving of coral cover on the GBR over the past 27 years. Interestingly only two years earlier a co-author of this report was the lead author in another study using the same survey data but found no evidence of any widespread decline in coral cover. The only additional evidence comes from surveys made to assess coral damage from two severe tropical cyclones which crossed the reef in the two subsequent years. Naturally these surveys were made in the affected areas and not over the majority of the reefs which were outside the storm track. With a bit of statistical jiggery-pokery this new data was incorporated and smoother into a 27 year decline.

The new study was published in a high profile peer reviewed journal which requires that any conflicting evidence be addressed. Although the earlier study was briefly cited no mention was made of its directly contradictory conclusion. By not mentioning any conflicting evidence in a journal which specifically requires this, the clear impression is that there was none. Obviously this was not just a matter of not being aware of the earlier study but had to be a deliberate decision to ignore its conflicting findings. At minimum this kind of misrepresentation must be seen to constitute scientific misconduct and quite arguably could be seen as fraud.

Government and taxpayers have been paying extravagantly for, and relying heavily upon, scientific advice which is often provably false, highly selected or of grossly exaggerated certainty. Laws against fraud and false or misleading advertising are being blatantly violated and need to be enforced.

Trying to frame it all as simply honest differences of opinion among researchers makes a farce of the very concept of scientific integrity. There is compelling prima facie evidence of violations of existing legislation regarding fraud and unethical business practices. This deserves proper investigation and charges being made if indicated. If those found guilty were simply stripped of all public funding and barred for a lengthy period from any future funding the humiliation plus the horror of having to find some honest means of making a living would surely inject a much needed concern for honesty into the research community.

Australia now faces a developing economic crisis that may well become the most serious in our history. Three-quarters of our small miners, fishers, timber cutters, farmers and graziers have been forced out of a cherished way of life that helped sustain us all. Misguided and often malignant environmental restrictions and demands have played a major role in this decline. We have the most expensive housing and power in the developed world, soaring food prices and the smallest manufacturing sector of any OECD nation. There are numerous other more real and important needs for our limited government revenue than maintaining several hundred bureaucrats and academics on a permanent Barrier Reef holiday.

To further confuse the issue, much of the opposition to the dredging is being driven more by opposition to coal mining than by any actual threat to the reef. Unfortunately both the world economy and our own are still going to require a lot of coal for a few decades yet to come. Trying to force a premature adoption of alternative energy at this point is a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately the real situation is far less bleak than the alarmist's proclaim. The GBR is in excellent condition and under no threat. The warming effect of increased CO₂ has been greatly exaggerated and the net effect of a slightly warmer climate plus the stimulation of plant growth from CO₂ is more likely to be a net benefit than a detriment. Meanwhile population growth is falling in most nations, and is already below replacement level in many with the global population projected to begin to decline by mid- century.

A variety of technological advances in energy generation, use and storage are on the horizon and promise to eliminate the problems associated with a heavy dependence on fossil fuels. However, their ongoing use for a few more decades will be essential to get from here to there.

In the meantime the most certain way to assure a speedy recovery of the GBR would be to take the reef experts at their word, accept it is doomed and stop throwing good money after bad in a hopeless effort to save it. If it got as bad as they claim despite all the money and effort expended and while starting from a vastly better condition to begin with, surely nothing can save it now.

Closing down GBRMPA and reducing reef research to pallative care in the form of a modest monitoring effort could save over $100 million annually. If this were done and future expenditure made contingent upon any positive signs of a possible turnaround, I am confident we could soon expect a miraculous recovery.

Source: On Line Opinion

About the author: Dr Walter Starck has a PhD in marine science including post graduate training and professional experience in fisheries biology. He is the editor and publisher of Golden Dolphin, a quarterly publication on CD focusing on diving, underwater photography and the ocean world.

Dredging is vital to keep Ports operational.

Originally posted by North Queensland Bulk Ports 20th Jan 2014 Here

Ports have been operating in Australia for over 200 years and dredging has been a vital part of ensuring safe and efficient ports.

Dredging involves removing sediment from the seafloor for a variety of purposes, whether to deepen or maintain existing berth pockets and passageways or to create additional berths in harbours. 

NQBP is port authority for three ports operating within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area which have been subject to strict environmental controls for many decades.

Throughout the past year there has been a concerted campaign of misinformation about dredging operations proposed at the Port of Abbot Point.  The misinformation generally claims that dredging will result in damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

NQBP has an impeccable track record with regards to dredging activities.  In accordance with Commonwealth and State legislative requirements, all NQBP dredging projects undergo rigorous environmental assessment of potential impacts.

While the science is extensive and detailed – the facts are simple:

• All coral reefs are protected from dredging;
• No toxic material is disposed at sea;
• Suitable relocation sites are selected carefully under strict regulation;
• All environmental sensitive areas are protected; and
• Australia needs ports and ports require dredging.

Since 2002, NQBP has successfully undertaken 22 dredging campaigns and we have employed world class environmental management and monitoring programs for each campaign.  These serve as a far better guide to what can be expected than the deliberately misleading and wildly inaccurate claims.

 

For more information about dredging, the Queensland Ports Association has released two fact sheets: 

Why Qld Ports need to Dredge
Options to manage Dredged Material

Ports are vital to our economy

A question often asked.  How many people outside the ports and shipping industry actually give any thought as to how their food, clothes, fuel and other items find their way across the world to appear on the shop shelves or at a petrol station??

Without safe access to ports and harbours, ships cannot deliver their goods.  Also, the same goes for goods being shipped from our country, as in agriculture products, seafood, live cattle and so on.

Without dredging - ports cannot operate.  If the Green organizations get their way and stop all dredging and dumping within the Great Barrier Reef Marine park waters. What will become of all our ports along the east coast of Queensland?? It is FACT, they have to dredge from time to time.  For maintenance, expansion and so on.

The Green organizations have really backed themselves into a corner by wanting to halt all DREDGING and DUMPING. Before they were just saying they wanted dumping stopped.  Now, everywhere that they are posting , whether it is on social media or via television networks and newspaper articles, they are saying DREDGING and DUMPING to be halted.  

They need to realize that this simply cannot happen.  Ports need to dredge. What do they suggest the ports do if they cannot dredge??  They have no answers ofcourse, because , we all know that originally it was all about the coal industry and they are hell bent on stopping coal exports at all costs. They clearly just don't get what they are proposing.  By stopping coal exports they will stop all exports and imports into and out of Queensland. 

It is time that the Green groups and their followers take off the blinders and instead of trying to kill the coal industry put their money to good use (instead of ridiculous court proceedings) and help the Great Barrier Reef with donations to fund more research!!

The reef is worth saving. Funding to scientists should be for finding out how to stop the Crown of Thorns Starfish outbreak.  How to manage ports and dredging so that the Qld economy can keep ticking over.  It is time for the anti coal green scientists to step up to the plate and put up their hands to do more research on the effects of dredging.  Instead of trying to stop it and kill our economy which in the long run will not help the reef.  Our strong economy is where money will come for the funding of appropriate research.

hes  to  ports  at  defined  

A new organization has just started called Reef CSI.  Run by Scientists who care about the Reef and who will not be guided my misinformation or hysteria.

Reef CSI – People saving the Great Barrier Reef.

Outraged by what you’re hearing about the Great Barrier Reef?
Confused by the mixed messages?
Want to help save the Reef?
ReefCSI is an independent not-for-profit with only one agenda – finding and doing what’s right for the Great Barrier Reef. This means we tackle the hard but important questions. It also means we’re willing to step on toes… of industry, regulators, conservationists, researchers, governments and the media – anyone who is off-base over what is needed to put the Reef in its best position for coping with human impacts.

Reef CSI Facebook Page

Reef CSI Website