First, The Australian is checking the referrer. If you google for "Activists ‘distorting’ reef data" you will be able to view the article. It should be the firs

First, The Australian is checking the referrer. If you google for "Activists ‘distorting’ reef data" you will be able to view the article. It should be the first or second result. Second, the link you provided is about bad media coverage, and Wattsupwiththat presented it in a biased manner. The reality is one Australian agency thought 22% of the reef died in 2016, and another thought that 35% died. The person in charge of the first agency took issue with the head of the other agency's language and some (poor) unrelated media reporting that grossly overstated the extent of the die off. He was completely correct to take issue with the poor reporting. But there is no dispute that 1/4-1/3 of the reef bleached that year. If you are interested, here is the publication from the 2nd agency, with methodology: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04660-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04660-w Notably, the scientist you are talking about, Dr. Reichelt, didn't disagree with the consensus. Quoting him, "This is a frightening enough story with the facts, you don’t need to dress them up. We don’t want to be seen as saying there is no ­problem out there but we do want people to understand there is a lot of the reef that is unscathed" If it's of interest to you, https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2018-2019 https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summar... is a great resource, and will show bleaching events and recovery in the various regions of the Great Barrier Reef.