Almost a quarter of corals on the iconic Great Barrier Reef have died because of record ocean temperatures driven by globalย warming.
Those are the bare facts, according to the Australian Governmentโs Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).
The coral bleaching that swept across the reef system this Australia summer, hitting hardest the most pristine northern section, affected 93 per cent of individual reefs along its 2300 kilometre stretch (1430ย miles).
Scientists have pointed out how those corals that survived the bleaching will be weakened and, to recover, they will need all the help they can get. That means big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and localย pollution.
The news has swept across the globe.ย Pretty much every major media outlet in the world has told its viewers and readers about the bleaching and shown them the spectacular and confronting images of bleached white coral. Now, the images show deadย coral.
The impacts will be felt along the reef for years to come.ย The northern section in particular, according to Professor Terry Hughes, chairman of the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce, will never be the same in ourย lifetimes.
Global warming, driven mainly by the burning of fossil fuels, was the key culprit that drove ocean temperatures in the region to record levels which, in turn, caused the corals to bleach. The key question was, how many corals wouldย survive?
But on Saturday 4 June, the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Australian newspaper decided its page one story should not concentrate on the figures that confirmed the death of almost a quarter of the corals on the reef during its worst ever coral bleachingย event.
Instead, The Australian focused on an accusation that some โactivist scientistsโ and โlobby groupsโ had exaggerated the bleaching, quoting GBRMPA chairman Dr Russellย Reichelt.
Favouriteย targets
The opportunity to have a crack at one of the newspaperโs favourite targets โ environmentalists and climate change campaigners โ was just too good an opportunity to miss, itย seems.
But Reichelt later told Guardian Australia that, in fact, his criticism was more targeted at theย media.
โI have no problem with environmental activists portraying the seriousness of the event,โ heย said.
โThese groups play a critically important role in raising public awareness and we communicate with them regularly. My concern is that the public receive clear understanding of the serious effects of this event on the Great Barrier Reef, including that it is caused by global warming. The media is reporting science in ways that are veryย misleading.โ
Veryย misleading?
So this commentary on science in the media brings us neatly to The Australianโs editorial from earlier this week, which picked up on its earlier story that the reef was in much better shape than some media and environmentalists would apparently have usย believe.
The editorial completely ignored Reicheltโs attempt to clarify the record, saying he had โdissociated his agency from activist scientists and green lobbyists who have distorted surveys, maps and data in order to talk up the extent of coralย bleachingโ.
But then the newspaper went on to commit the same kind of misrepresentations that it had accused othersย of.
The Australian gave another example of what it thinks is a tendency to exaggerate. The editorialย said:
Ocean acidification is another case study in the pseudoscience of exaggeration. Interest in this topic has exploded, and journals have an inherent bias towards calamitous predictions, the Norwegian-based marine scientist Howard Browman told this newspaper in March.
โI never spoke to Theย Australianโ
The first thing to say about this is that Dr Howard Browman has never spoken to The Australian. I know this because I askedย him.
The Australian had actually reprinted a story that had appeared in the UKโs The Times newspaper, also owned by Rupert Murdochโs NewsCorp, that had quotedย Browman.
The second thing to know is that The Times story, which also ran on page one, was based on a misinterpretation of the conclusions from a special issue of the ICES Journal of Marine Science, which Browmanย edits.
As reported on DeSmog, Browman has said the interview he gave to The Times had been โcherryย pickedโ.
Browman told me that attributing his name to the statement โjournals have an inherent bias towards calamitous predictionsโ was โanotherย distortionโ.
He explained that across many science disciplines, there was a known publication bias against studies that did not find dramatic results.ย In March, Browman explained this did not mean that scientists were exaggeratingย results.
Browman told me that he would have expected The Australian to have known the issues with the originalย story.
He said: โFrom this, I conclude that The Australian opinion editorial appears to be a case of compoundedย misrepresentation.โ
@readfearn – I never talked w/The Australian & the original story referred to was debunked – https://t.co/9K1JPpNoZk
โ Howard I. Browman (@HBrowman) June 7, 2016
The issues with the original Times story, featuring Browman, were also highlighted in a letter to the newspaperโs editor from members of the UKโs House of Lords, accusing the paper of โdistorted coverageโ of climateย change.
In 2015, The Australian published a column rejecting the science of ocean acidification from climate science denier Patrick Moore.ย Actual experts in ocean acidification described the column as โhighly misleadingโ, โnonsenseโ and โvery wrongโ.
Ocean acidification is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, coming mainly from fossil fuel burning (Moore was recently hired by Europeโs peak coal industry lobby group to tell an audience of European policy makers that carbon dioxide was great for theย planet).
Doomsdayย predictions
But back to The Australianโs reef editorial, which also quoted Professor Carlos Duarte as saying that doomsday predictions over the reef risked conveying a โhopeless notion to managers and the public that we are confronted with an insurmountable environmentalย crisisโ.
Duarte told me: โThe quote is correct, but it does not relate to whether the GBR is bleaching, for which there is solid and robust evidence. Addressing this requires a commitment from policy makers and managers to act locally to reduce local pressures (excessive nutrient and pollutant inputs from industrial and agricultural activities in the watershed and adjacent coast), thereby helping rebuild resilience, and globally to contribute to reduce green house emissions and help less favoured societiesย adapt.โ
This image shows a dead coral ย specimen on Lizard Island. On the left, the coral is already bleached white. On the right, the coral has later been covered with algae. Credit:ย ย XL Catlin Seaviewย Survey
The Australian also criticised US President Barack Obama for a 2014 speech in which he said he was worried that his children might not be able to see the glory of the reef in theย future.
Duarte added: โIt is not by doing nothing that these pressures will be removed and Obama Jr Jr will be able to enjoy a healthy GBR.โ
The editorial also tried to suggest that global warming was only a recent concern for the reef, saying that โif climate change is the favourite reef villain today, it used to be the Crown of Thornsย starfishโ.
Attacks from the coral-eating starfish cause huge damage to the reef. One study from the governmentโs Australian Institute of Marine Science estimated the reef had lost half its coral cover between 1985 and 2012 and that the starfish was responsible for about 42 per cent of the loss.ย The starfish outbreaks have been linked to poor water quality on the reef due mainly to pollutants entering reef water catchments fromย farming.
But is climate change really the new โreef villainโ as The Australian suggested?ย In 2009, GBRMPA released its first Outlook Report for the reef.ย This is what itย said.
Unavoidably, future predictions of climate change dominate most aspects of the Great Barrier Reefโs outlook over the next few decades. The extent and persistence of the damage to the ecosystem will depend to a large degree on the amount of change in the worldโs climate and on the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem in the immediateย future.
Subsequent Outlook Reports repeated the warning that the biggest long-term threat to the reefโs future is climate change. This is not someย fad.
Without major cuts to greenhouse gases one group of scientists has suggested the extreme temperatures that faced the reef this summer will, by the 2030s, be only averageย conditions.
Just to be clear here, little is gained by exaggerating the impacts of global warming and pollution on the Great Barrierย Reef.
But the issues created by exaggeration pale in comparison to the coral bleaching and now death that have changed a large section of the reef for decades to come, perhaps evenย generations.
Without major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the prognosis looks bleakย for one of the world’s most diverse natural habitats and a natural wonder of the world. ย That is noย exaggeration.
Main Image: A diver surveys bleached and now dead coral covered in algae on Lizard island, Great Barrier Reef.ย Credit:ย XL Catlin Seaviewย Survey
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts