That sounds a lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity which is exactly one argument that climate change deniers use.
I was about to say that it sounds like complete bs given that queensland iirc was part of pangaea 500m years ago and located somewhere near the south pole. Also because the current reef actually dates back about 6,000 years. Also if you want to argue that reefs developing and dying off over time with climate change etc means *nothing to see here* then you've got rocks in yr head.
Which is another common line from climate change deniers. The climate has always changed, therefore the current change is nothing special so we needn't worry about it. (And sometimes the argument goes that we can't do anything about the current change and/or that the current change can't be caused by humans.) Again, I'm going to trust the people who study this for a living.
It's also plain common sense to say that the climate changes, but for some reason you keep linking this back to climate change deniers (why?). The post is about the recovery of the great barrier reef, which many, many experts and reports have failed to predict in their "expert" opinions. If I hadn't had an official report proving this, the thread would of been hijacked by those claiming it another conspiracy theory.
Because you used, word for word, a common line used by climate change deniers. And climate change is what's destroying the reefs (both the increase in temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide (the main cause of the increase)).
They describe it in rather balanced terms:
No, they really don't think the Great Barrier Reef is likely to rebound in the future. I wish we could all feel more optimistic but in this case I just don't think that's justified.
Bruce, I 've made no suggestions or comments denying anything or suggesting that man isn't involved in some way in the decline of the barrier reef. There are lots of problems in that area on top of climate change. My post is about the fact that the reef has made a recovery against decades of doom and gloom reports and news about their "irreversible" demise. This just shows how amazingly resilient nature is and how man can get (predictions) things wrong. There is nothing more I can add.
One part of the reef has grown, with coral they consider to be particularly vulnerable to damage.
Here is an Obituary written in the Guardian, this clearly shows what the experts were predicting for the great barrier reef. As I said, If one had said we would see record growth, this would have been written off as a conspiracy theory.
www.theguardian.com
Really? It says that "some scientists think it can hold on in an altered state, similar to its previous incarnations". I doubt the idea of part of the reef growing quickly (with coral that's particularly vulnerable to damage, so probably a temporary growth) would have been startling. It might have been thought unlikely.
It's an obituary, how could we have record growth when they are publishing an obituary?
I presume it's because their research lead the scientists behind the obituary to believe it to be the case. Not all scientists agree, and theories change as new evidence comes in, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
I honestly don't think they are helping themselves or anybody else by publishing such grave and extreme headlines. People just won't take them seriously in the event they are actually right. Like the boy who cried wolf. So many others are doing the same thing. Greta Thunberg was telling people to be in a panic and fear climate change. She was interviewed by the US government committe on climate change about her statements, she back peddled and said she didn't mean it literally! But never clarified this at the time. She was then pressed on what she had based such alarming comments on she said nothing or something to that effect.
