3 ms·

Just to play devils advocate (Im a huge reef supporter) This report seems to say the opposite? Are there flaws? https://www.thegwpf.com/claims-of-dramatic-los

Just to play devils advocate (Im a huge reef supporter) This report seems to say the opposite? Are there flaws? https://www.thegwpf.com/claims-of-dramatic-loss-of-great-barrier-reef-corals-are-false%E2%80%A8/ https://www.thegwpf.com/claims-of-dramatic-loss-of-great-bar...

kristopolous 6y ago
First, let's set aside that this is a secretive climate change denial lobbying group that's been under multiple investigations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundati...) and is headquartered at the same office as an industrial mining lobbying group and look at the actual claim. They quote fired climate skeptic Peter Ridd (https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd) who has been funded by numerous industrial groups and coincidentally made claims that their products are harmless. This time he misreads AIMS data for which AIMS has openly criticized him before on (that's why he had to create his own chart and not use one of AIMS). AIMS of course, firmly and clearly states the opposite of his findings: https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/declining-coral-growth.html https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/declini... . Coincidentally the GPWF is fairly well known for intentionally deceptive graphics https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_P... Anyway, then the article says the author of the claim they are criticizing, Terry Hughes of James Cook University "refused to make public the raw data". This is linguistic acrobatics. His research team had already made public the data so he personally couldn't make it public a second time because that's not how language works. Here's the data: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ncjsxksrq https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ncjsxk... So in summary they lied about the data not being public and cited someone who intentionally misrepresented data and has been censured for that multiple times, all in 243 words. That's some achievement!

kristopolous 6y ago

First, let's set aside that this is a secretive climate change denial lobbying group that's been under multiple investigations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundati...) and is headquartered at the same office as an industrial mining lobbying group and look at the actual claim. They quote fired climate skeptic Peter Ridd (https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd) who has been funded by numerous industrial groups and coincidentally made claims that their products are harmless. This time he misreads AIMS data for which AIMS has openly criticized him before on (that's why he had to create his own chart and not use one of AIMS). AIMS of course, firmly and clearly states the opposite of his findings: https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/declining-coral-growth.html https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/declini... . Coincidentally the GPWF is fairly well known for intentionally deceptive graphics https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_P... Anyway, then the article says the author of the claim they are criticizing, Terry Hughes of James Cook University "refused to make public the raw data". This is linguistic acrobatics. His research team had already made public the data so he personally couldn't make it public a second time because that's not how language works. Here's the data: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ncjsxksrq https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.ncjsxk... So in summary they lied about the data not being public and cited someone who intentionally misrepresented data and has been censured for that multiple times, all in 243 words. That's some achievement!