UNESCO versus the IPCC on the Barrier Reef

In 2017 UNESCO cleared the Great Barrier Reef of danger status and the next year the IPCC calls wolf and PM Turnbull forks out 444 million extra to investigate.

Interesting that UNESCO is politically correct on most issues. Enhancing the Inclusiveness of the National Action Plan for Climate Adaptation in Indonesia.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to UNESCO versus the IPCC on the Barrier Reef

  1. stackja

    …UNESCO is politically correct on most issues.

    I am shocked!

  2. Not Uh oh

    It’s dead. The ABC said so. Get over it and move on.

  3. Muddy

    Not Uh oh
    #3043158, posted on June 15, 2019 at 10:32 am

    It’s dead. The ABC said so. Get over it and move on.

    A good point. So what shall we do with such a broad stretch of prime real estate? Development suggestions, anyone? Surely the Chinese would be interested in using it to store warships during the northern winter?

    No doubt the $444 million has been returned to the taxpayer? No? It’s still needed? The reef is only partly dead but could be revived with another taxpayer donation-in-perpetuity?

    Wait a minute! Is this a Zombie Reef?

  4. It’s dead. The ABC said so. Get over it and move on.

    And we should now build a theme park on it. Or maybe an Apple store.

  5. mem

    In 2017 UNESCO cleared the Great Barrier Reef of danger status and the next year the IPCC calls wolf and PM Turnbull forks out 444 million extra to investigate.
    Does anyone really know what happened to the $444 million of our money that Turnbull gifted the foundation?

  6. Rafe Champion

    Who cares about 444 mil, like a rounding error in the accounts with the national debt running up towards 600 billion.

  7. Tel

    In terms of the running of Australia half a billion isn’t all that much, but the potential to spend on bribes and “thank you” money for individual politicians and their helpers is huge. If the anti-terrorist squad can track all of my transactions then I sure as heck would like to know exactly who trousered the reef foundation money.

  8. I think every Australian, apart from the Greens and their acolytes, would like to know where this tax money went.

  9. egg_

    The warming movement doesn’t fare well with second opinions, viz ManBearPig’s court case loss in the UK.

  10. egg_

    If the anti-terrorist squad can track all of my transactions then I sure as heck would like to know exactly who trousered the reef foundation money.

    Keeping the Green coated swamp botherers in a manner to which they are accustomed?

  11. egg_

    It’s dead. The ABC said so. Get over it and move on.

    And we should now build a theme park on it. Or maybe an Apple store.

    A ginormous wind farm?

  12. Muddy

    egg_
    #3043294, posted on June 15, 2019 at 1:46 pm

    It’s dead. The ABC said so. Get over it and move on.

    And we should now build a theme park on it. Or maybe an Apple store.

    A ginormous wind farm?

    Mine the dead coral and build a wall?
    So which state do we wall in?

  13. egg_

    Mine the dead coral

    Sell it to tourists as trinkets.

  14. Shy Ted

    If only we had someone with a background in advertising who could rebrand the reef ala BHP, ANZ, CBA, ALP and so on. Just think of the tourism interest if it was declared a zombie reef, dead but not dead. The walking reef. Visit the reef – if you dare! Want to dive on the reef? More likely you’ll die on the reef! A climate catastrophe-led economic recovery.

  15. You could set up a tourist scheme where they could paint a part of the reef for a fee and then take selfies. And in sensitive parts of the reef you could commission ‘artists’ to paint the reef for a new form of expression. They would obviously have to use warm colours to represent global warming.

  16. cohenite

    The GBR did not exist until about 11000 years ago.

  17. The GBR did not exist until about 11000 years ago.

    You are being generous, Cohenite. At 11,000 years ago, sea levels were still 60 metres below current levels. I doubt the reef existed in its current location when almost certainly it was still dry land.

    In its current location the reef might be 6-7000 years old.

  18. The GBR did not exist until about 11000 years ago.

    You are being a bit generous, Cohenite. Sea levels 11,000 years ago were still 60 metres below current levels, so I doubt the GBR was in existence on its current site at that point. Perhaps 6-7000 years ago when sea levels had risen to about 10 metres below current levels.

  19. Something strange happened there. The original post did not appear, until I posted the followup. Strange.

  20. Something very odd and strange. again

  21. Mark M

    Half of the GBR has died at least three times a year during the ‘hottest years. Evah.’
    It’s worse that they first thought.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.