- it is a meta-study based on surveys performed more frequently on damaged areas, by poorly trained observers
- it asserts storm damage is increasing because of increased cyclone intensity, but there is no measured increase in intensity
- the cause and effect of water quality issues are significantly more complicated than presented
It also raises the question of what benefit Australia has received from all its previous GBR management investment. If efforts of previous decades have been so completely ineffectual, why throw more money at it?
Googled around and seems like Anthony Watts is a noted anti-environmentalist. His bread and butter seems to be disputing the validity of -any- study which shows significant impacts and threats to ecosystems and/or the biosphere from human activity.
Not saying that his criticisms are wrong, but it sounds like if anyone were going to wave off bad news about the GBR and say 'oh it's fine, don't worry,' it'd be him.
- it is a meta-study based on surveys performed more frequently on damaged areas, by poorly trained observers
- it asserts storm damage is increasing because of increased cyclone intensity, but there is no measured increase in intensity
- the cause and effect of water quality issues are significantly more complicated than presented
It also raises the question of what benefit Australia has received from all its previous GBR management investment. If efforts of previous decades have been so completely ineffectual, why throw more money at it?