Survey says coral reefs bounced back and thriving

Coral reefs inconveniently bounced back and and are bursting with color and life.

Corals are extremely old species, much older than man. Coral thrived at far higher temperature and CO2 concentrations than anything we see today.

Climate campaigners seized on “coral bleaching” as a fallback argument to demonize CO2 after global temperature failed to rise due to the gas you just exhaled as computer models projected.

Will team warming ever learn that attributing normal, local, natural phenomena to climate collapses when nature’s pendulum swings the other way? See e.g, polar bears (fine), Antarctic ice (thick), and extreme weather (normal).

CFACT’s friend Down Under Jo Nova rounds up the reports:

‘In a nutshell: a government funded group finds some bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef, and repackages the stats to come up with the apocalyptic statistic that only 7% of the reef is not bleached! The SMH reported that “93% of the corals” are damaged. The reef is 2,000 kilometers long. Did anyone really think about these headlines?

Then in a development that “no one” could see coming, local tourism is damaged, potentially costing a lot of jobs.

“And the loss of these tourists could cost our tourism industry a whopping $1 billion a year, a report out today by The Australia Institute warned.”

This inspires local dive operators (who possibly know what the reef looks like) to pay for a two week expedition to survey 28 sites. They find about 5% damage and describe the difference as phenomenal. Indeed, they say the reef is pretty much just like it was 20 years ago when they last did a survey.

We know that both sides have an interest finding a healthy or unhealthy reef. The problem starts with self-serving taxpayer funded scientists who are paid to find a crisis. But they would not get away with it if the media didn’t let them. Blame sloppy gullible journalists like Tom Arup (SMH), and Stephanie Smail (ABC) who should have asked some hard questions, and protested at the surreal headlines. Will the job-destroying ABC report the new survey?

Great Barrier Reef only 5% bleached, Cairns Post

Teams of divers in a joint two-week expedition sponsored by Mike Ball Dive and Spirit of Freedom surveyed 28 sites on 24 outer shelf reefs along a 300km section of the hardest-hit part of the reef from Bathurst Head to Raine Island.

Mike Ball Dive Expeditions operations manager Craig Stephen, who conducted a similar survey on the remote reefs 20 years ago, said there had been almost no change in two decades despite the latest coral bleaching event.

“The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.”

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimated a mass coral white-out of between 50 to 60 per cent, on average, for reefs off Cape York under the world’s biggest-ever mass coral bleaching event.

Scientists with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies reported about 35 per cent mortality but warned “the final death toll” on some reefs may exceed 90 per cent.’

Have reports of the demise of coral reefs been greatly exaggerated to serve the anti-CO2 narrative?



About the Author: CFACT Ed

  1. Immortal600

    Another AGW scare tactic shown to be a fraud. Now, waiting for the resident FRAUD troll to show up to dispute the article. He won’t be able to. He’ll just have some inane comment that he thinks is clever. In reality he’s a dummy kook who needs to troll these sites.

  2. Dano2

    Whoya gonna believe? A disinformation site or the scientists who dedicated their lives to studying coral reefs?



  3. Immortal600

    I think I’ll believe the people who have been there saying this:

    “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.”

    I will believe THEM long before some kook troll who comes here spouting inane garbage.

  4. Gary Hall

    “Have reports of the demise of coral reefs been greatly exaggerated to serve
    the anti-CO2 narrative?”


        • Dano2

          Um, the dive guy reported on by the disinfo site isn’t a “study”.

          Plus, these two links reference the same study, which doesn’t find things are better than they had been projected. Were you duped into pasting these links?



          • Gary Hall

            Can’t read,? “here’s one of the two.”
            Article location
            Study location – the link is in there: The findings, recently published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B

            Duped? What a jerk you be.

            • Dano2

              Thanks, I misunderstood your comment, apologies.

              Nonetheless, the dive guy in the disinformation story didn’t perform a study, and paper you pointed to didn’t find things are better than they had been projected. Even a cursory reading of those two links confirms it. Did you click on the links?



              • Gary Hall

                Goodness – the study found that coral reefs across a broad area, which were not directly impacted by man were thriving – they cried with excitement because it wasn’t what they expected. Everyone has been predicting that ‘acifidication,’ and warming seas – caused by AGW – was causing great damage to coral reefs globally. No so. Another report just out:

                Scientists declared Coral Castles dead just 13 years ago, and gave the South Pacific reef little chance of coming back anytime soon.

                Scientists were later stunned to see Coral Castles teeming with life during a 2015 dive, despite that year meteoroligists declaring that year the hottest on record globally. The New York Times reported divers “were greeted with a vista of bright greens and purples — unmistakable signs of life.”

                “Everything looked just magnificent,” said Jan Witting, the dive’s lead scientist who works at the Sea Education Association, told NYT.

                “Last year, the whole place was holding its breath,” Witting said. “The whole ocean’s in bloom this year.” [..]

                Witting’s 2015 dive came after scientists found reefs in the Rangiroa lagoon in French Polynesia had rebounded just 15 years after being devastated by the incredibly strong 1998 El Nino warming event.

                “Our projections were completely wrong,” marine biologist Peter Mumby told BBC News in 2014. “Sometimes it is really nice to be
                proven wrong as a scientist, and this was a perfect example of that.”

                Mumby’s team initially predicted it would take Rangiroa reefs 100 years to fully recover, but it only took the reef 15 years after El Nino hit it hard. At the time, 1998 was also declared the hottest year on record by climatologists.

                The 1998 El Nino wiped out 16 percent of the world’s reefs due to warmer ocean temperatures, especially in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Scientists predict bleaching will get worse and eventually kill off many of the world’s reefs in the coming decades.

                But scientists are learning coral reef survival is more complicated than just warm oceans. Human activities, local environments and sea level also influence how reefs weather bleaching events.
                You’ll note the word “predicted” within. Synonymous with “projected,” I believe.

                Another report just found that most all of the Great Barrier reef is in excellent health – pristine – not what was predicted, either.

                Note: El Nino is a naturally occurring climatic event. Not caused by AGW.

                • Immortal600

                  Hmmmm…… I wonder what the AGW kook known as Dano will say to your post? More inane garbage, I suppose? One thing for sure, it won’t be very intelligent or clever. Drink? Best? He suffers from OCD. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to make a post without using ‘Best’ in closing. IMPOSSIBLE.

                  • BaB

                    He’s a retard that somehow leaves out studies like ex-NASA Miskolczi’s, one that alarmist morons couldn’t debunk because it’s true. And he clearly states it’s bullshit. 😛

                    • Dano2

                      Denialists count on papers in obscure predatory journals that no one reads to prop up their ideology.



                    • BaB

                      “denialists” – how to instantly showcase you’re a moron that can’t think. 😉
                      Facts vs propaganda, son.

                • Dano2

                  Golly, the Proc Roy Soc B study did not find things are better than they had been projected, they found Our findings suggest that in the absence of local human impacts, coral reef communities appear to be more resistant or resilient to global change than those with local human populations,” said Smith, lead author of the study. and that their results suggest that cumulative human impacts on inhabited islands across the central Pacific may be causing a reduction in calcifying, reef-building organisms resulting in island-scale shifts to dominance by fleshy organisms. which is a – reduction in the abundance of reef builders

                  Nowhere in the press release do we see mention of things are better than they had been projected, because that’s not what the study looked at – the study examine[d] how benthic reef communities differ in the presence and absence of human populations.


                  Also, the story you read in the NYT but didn’t quote this part contradicts your Another report just found that most all of the Great Barrier reef is in excellent health – pristine. But besides that, this is another report that describes how man – in several ways – is severely degrading coral habitat. As you know, because you are conversant on this issue.

                  BTW, the warming of 2016 is not solely due to El Nino, as the scientists have told you already.



                  • Immortal600

                    The scientists you cite are frauds just like YOU! Anybody getting a government grant to “study” AGW is a FRAUD, just like YOU.

                    • Dano2

                      Tell that to the other commenter. He cited them – harrumphingly chastise him.

                      But to the point: you cannot show they are frauds. You made that up.



                    • Dano2

                      a government grant to “study” AGW is a FRAUD

                      What do all your ideologically pure, free merkit scientist have to say about the observed changes? Do they attribute them to basic physics and chemistry – the same physics and chemistry that works everywhere in the universe – or have they discovered a NewPhysics that only works here on earf?

                      Let us know, and cite some of this NewPhysics to show the world you knowin some stuff.



                    • Immortal600

                      Nothing for YOU, kook, TRUE. Is it possible for you to EVER post something without your phony ‘best’ at the end? IS IT??? I bet not! Show me I’m wrong.

                      hhehehehehehe kook

                    • Immortal600

                      The physics and chemistry YOU like to cite has yet to show CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the world’s climate. FACT you can’t refute no matter what you cite.

                    • Dano2

                      The physics and chemistry YOU like to cite has yet to show CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the world’s climate.

                      Whoopsie! yes it has for ~2 centuries! Them kids these days are learnin about it by the 10th grade.

                      But you knew this already, as I explained it to your previous screen name. Apparently this one can’t comprehend it either, eh?

                      Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

                      Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

                      Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

                      Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

                      Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:


                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:


                      Experiments confirming all this:

                      Feldman, D.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519 pp. 339–343.

                      Press release explaining results:

                      You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.



                    • Immortal600

                      Post the same stupid crap again and it might be true! THOSE links DON’T show HOW CO2 does ANYTHING to the climate. FACT.

                      Try again there, kook.

                      Can you post just ONE time without using ‘best’? Can you?

                    • Dano2

                      THOSE links DON’T show HOW CO2 does ANYTHING to the climate. FACT.

                      Spoiler alert: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH more comedy!

                      Hint: I LOLzed.



                    • Immortal600

                      Not good enough, kook. You suffer from OCD or maybe some other psychiatric disorder. You’ve been told that too, I’m sure.
                      Try posting again without ‘best’ either hidden or seen. See if you can do it. Go ahead, it won’t hurt. Really!!!


                    • Dano2

                      Keep deflecting from your uh-mazing comedy routine until you take a nice naptime in your chair.

                      Everyone sssssssssh! Nap time for lsand…



                    • Immortal600

                      hahahahahahhaha I KNEW IT!!!

                      KOOK DANO can’t post without ‘best’ D attached!!!

                      You are a mental midget, clown. That is why you aren’t taken too seriously here. Even with all your hillbilly type writing, not too clever BTW, you have NOTHING. We are hardly impressed with your rantings. You need psychiatric help, KOOK

                    • BaB

                      How cute, too bad the CO2 today is far lower than before. 😉 Even NASA admits CO2 doesn’t heat shit, genius.
                      It’s the worst possible gas you could use as a greenhouse gas. Why? because it changes rapidly, losing the minimal GH effect it has.

                      Sucks to be raped by facts continously, eh?

                      Oh btw, scientists are suing because your globalist tax morons are faking data. 😉

                    • Mike Wallace

                      Dano2 still impersonating a scientist. Similar to those losers who impersonate police officers and military war heroes. How sad and pathetic. Get help soon!

                    • Dano2

                      Weak mischaracterization to hide the error.

                      You can’t refute a word of that comment, which is why you need to resort to weak, puerile tactics. It gives your position away.



  5. Ian5

    What rubbish. CFACT points to the misinformation site JoNova…which cites an article in the Cairns Post… which points to the “survey” results of a dive operator Mike Ball Dive. No data, nothing published, no peer review. Junk.

    Please educate yourself about the reef:

    • Immortal600

      No where in that link of yours does it dispute what THIS article claims. Educate YOURSELF before posting nonsense here, troll. Jo Nova knows 100 times more about the issues than YOU do, that’s for sure!

      You are another AGW kook that has some need to troll these sites. Why?

    • Gamecock

      ‘In the taskforce’s statement on its final survey results’

      The original report published in SMH wasn’t peer reviewed, either, dumbass.

  6. jxxx mxxx

    It’s not “bouncing back”. It was never in danger in the first place. I was a lie designed to guilt voters into surrendering more of the money and lifestyle.

0 Pings & Trackbacks