Mr Bolt's "Climate Myths: 8--The Great Barrier Reef Is Dying"

To continue on with or complete the "good deeds" as per requirements listed on the Mer Contract to go home, we find that it is necessary (at the very least) to finish addressing Mr Bolt's so-called "10 Climate Myths" after leaving off unexpectedly at the number signifying incompletion or unexpected disruption, "Mr Bolt's Climate Myth 7".  I will first begin by addressing Mr Bolt's unstated accusations/claims and then follow-up with the scientific portion concerning The Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs following the "unstated response."

 

Mr Bolt wrote:

 

 

Mr Bolt's unstated argument is as follows: Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg stands to lose a lucrative $30 million dollar contract in the form of alarmist warming grants which he currently oversees and from which he profits.  Evidently, this conflict of interest and fear of having funding eliminated is what prompted the professor's strange about face of previously admitting that the "coral reefs made a spectacular recovery" to his current claim that the coral reefs are dying.  This--in spite of fellow researchers from his university admitting this month that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery" and that the reef is blooming. Thus, not science, but political pressure by the academia and fear of losing millions of taxpayer dollars prompted the prophet of doom to reverse his previous statement of recovery and bloom to that of coral death and doom.

 

Of course, it's not at all surprising that Mr Bolt would turn on climatology itself by accusing a respected leading scientist of making millions through bogus research projects and "warming grants" paid for by hardworking citizens if only to ignite the collective fury of taxpayers everywhere to fight the good fight in Australia's "war on science." News flash: professors would be on a set salary provided by the government through the academic institutions for which they conduct their research.  

 

That said, grants are provided to university scientists for research and equipment irrespective of the outcome of the research, not for profit.  However, it is still hypothetically possible that some scientists could abuse the system for the sake of a) profit or for b) job security, tenure, and name-recognition. 

 

Arguments A (profilt)/B (security)/C (tenure)/D (name-recognition):

 

 

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that greedy and unscrupulous scientists are hungry for tax dollars in the form of lucrative research grants which is why they contrived the global warming theory in the first place.  This is remotely possible since not all universities pay their climatologists and professors a living wage and require that they  compete for grants to pay for their research projects and to supplement their income.  University grants are primarily used for research and equipment.  Whatever is left is hardly lucrative or enviable but can still be offered to scientists as an incentive to stay competitive in their fields and to make end's meet  Yet it is still possible that those who oversee these research projects could potentially abuse the system by secretly funneling these funds to their personal bank accounts and becoming rich on taxpayer dollars through bogus research.  Such a strategy, however, is very risky as it amounts to embezzelment and scientific fraud.  As such it is strongly discouraged by law, by governments, by science, and by universities which also depend on these generous grants for support and operational costs.

 

So it is possibly better to hypothetically suppose b), that scientists pursue such grants for job security and for name-recognition in their respective fields.  One way to advance an academic career is to attract grants for funding research projects.  As a rule of thumb, projects that assume the mainstream view that "the coral reefs are dying" have a better chance for funding than controversial studies that oppose the scientific orthodoxy on the theory of global warming.  Thus it stands to reason that maintaining orthodox theories can be rewarding in itself for the sake of job security without necessarily profiting personally from these grants, which are not lucrative unless one secretly funnels and embezzles this money in some crooked and underhanded way.  But can be pursued for the sake of job security. 

 

But alas, even plan b) is easily foiled if the study is found to be unworthy for publication and is rejected by every scientific journal that the study is submitted to for peer review.  Or if the study is refuted in follow-up studies and thereby rendered obsolete and eliminated by due scientific process by future studies. In which case it is not merely the institution's good name that is at risk but the scientist's good name for taking grant money and squandering it on a bogus study that is ultimately rejected via peer review or refuted in follow-up studies. Thus, in the case of Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, Mr Bolt would have to offer concrete evidence to show that the professor is guilty of a) and b)/c)/d), although dropping innuendoes and hints is preferable if the claim cannot be substantiated by any other source.  

 

That said, we should also not forget the very lucrative "grants" that are offered to contrarian scientists for expressing contrarian viewpoints in speaking arrangement and in popular media.  These grants are provided by public relations firms for contrarian scientists to represent the side of industries by opposing the global warming theory.  Otherwise, it is also possible to self-administer "grants" via lucrative book deals through a publishing firm, and then writing a best-seller book to bypass peer-review process. Actually grants of this kind are far more lucrative than any tenured position offered by a university, although both types of "grants" (e.g., grants through publishing firms or public relations firms) are far less demanding of scientific integrity than grants from universities, since the aim is political to provide a scientific "front" in the form of speculative thinking, book deals, or public speaking arrangements than on actual peer-reviewed scientific research.  Until very recently, a $10,000 grant was being offered by EXxon-Mobil to any contrarian scientist who can get their study published to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to refute global warming.  As of yet there have been no "takers" for this grant (nor anyone who has published to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to refute global warming); so "grants" to contrarian scientists are confined to industrialists or right-wingers paying these scientists for their so-called "scientific expertise" in speaking arrangements and book deals. 

 

 As the vast majority of these contrarian scientists are not involved in legitimate scientific research by publishing their findings in peer-reviewed papers, they have the free time to avail their so-called expertise on extended speaking arrangements or book tours to promote best sellers in the popular science genre.  Both Andrew Bolt's and a paid contrarian scientist's salary is far more lucrative than simply a salaried tenure position at a university.  For this reason it is possible for contrarian scientists nay political pundits to cry "foul" by making the unfounded accusation that these university scientists are funneling some of these taxpayer funds that were earmarked for research to their personal bank accounts instead.  In which case it is up to the whistleblower, Mr Bolt, to provide some concrete evidence connecting Prof. Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, the accused, to this fraud nay, crime.  But all Mr Bolt offers are innuendoes which cannot be supported elsewhere by other sources so must be rejected as hypothetical.

 

 

1.  Ian Plimer

2.  Nils-Axel Moerner

3.  Josh Willis

4.  Ryan Maue

5.  Ove Hoegh-Gulberg

6.  Indur Goklany

7.  David Karoly

 

Of the 7 individual "experts" cited by Bolt to argue his case, only three were found to express opinions that support Mr. Bolt's various arguments:

 

1.  Ian Plimer - "the world is warming" is a myth.  

 

2.  Nils-Axel Moerner - "the seas are rising" is a myth.

 

3.  Ryan Maue - "cyclones are getting worse" is a myth.

 

Of the three above, one is a graduate student at FSU who himself claims in his report that the fact that cyclones are/were temporarily not "worse" than cyclones 30 years ago does not conflict with the scientific evidence concerning global warming [in light of natural variations (such as La Nina oscillations)].  In spite of this, his report is heavily cited in right-wing publications as "proof" against global warming.  The other two are listed as scientific "experts" for lobby organizations and energy (fossil fuel) companies whose confidentiality agreements do not allow them to say whether fossil fuel industries are funding these groups:

 

 

The remaining 4 individuals were cited by Mr Bolt to refute these various "myths," but are actually individuals who do not support Mr Bolt's various arguments in any way, shape, or form.  Instead, they were quoted out of context or were discarded arguments that these individuals abandoned upon follow-up studies by the individuals themselves or by others.  The point of Bolt's choice to feature these scientists' discarded arguments or cherry-picked words out of context to argue his case is a mystery to me since it has the opposite effect of diminishing Bolt's various "myths" as obsolete and irrelevent:

 

1.  David Karoly

2.  Josh Willis

3.  Ove Hoegh-Gulberg

4.  Indur Goklany

 

Mr Bolt's stated argument

Mr Bolt writes:

But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a “spectacular recovery”, with “abundant corals re-established in a single year”. The reef is blooming.

While true (in relativistic terms) that the Great Barrier Reef near Australia in east Pacifica is currently "blooming," e.g., recovering and "thriving." it is also true that to Mer of West Atlantica (off the Southeastern and Eastern coasts of the U.S. and elsewhere), the global coral crisis is currently in full bloom, e.g., bleaching and dying.  As such, to speak less relativistically, regionally, or colloquially and in truth, the global coral crisis is in full bloom globally: this includes the region within and surrounding the Great Barrier Reef near Australia in the far Pacifica.

 

Climate change is not a regional concern but a global one.  Therefore we cannot meaningfully argue that the Great Barrier Reef is in full bloom without putting it into the broader context of the world.  However, according to Philip Munday,  the Australian reef expert at Australia's James Cook University, there are some rays of hope in the new coral red list. For example, it appears to show that reefs in some parts of the far Pacific are now thriving in the warming waters. And Munday, the Australian reef expert at Australia's James Cook University, says that research conducted near the Great Barrier Reef appeared to show that when a wounded coral reef is put off limits to commercial fishermen, large numbers of big fish fill the area in a few years. [my italics].

And what are the problems caused by global warming?  To the coral reef and to mer, it is that coral reefs--which are the rain forests of the world--are bleaching and dying globally as a result of warming waters and ocean acidification from human-caused global warming.  In addition, they are also dying as a result of destructive fishing boats fishing for fish indiscriminately and ensnaring and trapping mers and other marine life (including coral reef) in the process.

 

Ocean acidification is caused by decreasing pH in the Earth's oceans from having to absorb the excess carbon that is injected into the atmosphere by humans.  Likewise, the oceans--which act as the global "sink"--absorb excess temperatures injected into the atmosphere as a consequence of the overall warming effect that is occurring long-term from global warming.  On the other hand, the "spectacular recovery" that Bolt boasts about is the result not of climate change being a "myth"--but rather the fact that commercial fishing was restricted in that area permitting these coral reefs to make a recovery.

 

From http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs: