Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Guardian, that endless source of climate activism, expoundeth as follows:
15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists
Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.
A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.
In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.
Say what? NOAA is releasing secret results exclusively to the Guardian? What’s wrong with this picture?
So I have emailed the NOAA folks as follows:
Dear NOAA Folk, and Dr. Mark Eakin:
In the British magazine The Guardian, I noticed the following:
15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists
Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.
A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.
In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.
Is the Guardian is telling the truth? Is NOAA secretly giving exclusive results to a foreign newspaper before releasing them to the taxpayers who paid for them? The “Coral Reef Watch” section of NOAA is credited with being the ones responsible for this underhanded action. Is this true?
And if so … what on earth are you people thinking of? That would be a blatant misuse of your authority, knowledge and power.
In any case, I call on you to immediately release whatever secret exclusive results the Guardian is referring to. They are using it to alarm the populace WITHOUT ALLOWING US TO INSPECT THE DATA, and you are complicit in their action.
I request that you send me by immediate email a copy of the exact results the article is referring to, and I call on you to publicly declare an end to such underhanded secret release of data. The Guardian is noted for its fire-brand alarmist climate rhetoric. And that’s fine for them, but you, on the other hand, are alleged to be scientists.
So I ask you to act as scientists, to permanently eschew such “exclusively released” figures, and to state publicly that in future your results will be available to all, rather than secretly given to your favored journalists.
My regards to you,
w.
PS—Please be aware that I have raised the issue publicly [with link to this post].
Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. I’ll report back when there are developments.
My best to all,
w.
As Always: If you disagree with something that I’ve written, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to.

Why is it that watermelons think it is healthier for plants and animals to never be trimmed of their numbers? What science backs that up? I have walked into a fuel laden dying old growth forest that was never allowed the freedom of a forest fire. Not a pretty sight.
We know little of how long term oscillations between warm periods and mini ice ages are actually beneficial. To force flora and fauna into a wax museum such that coral would never bleach again raises red flags to me that it would be far worse than the oft repeated episodes of mass extinctions, let alone the occasional catastrophic forest fire or even the occasional diminution of the three toed horned tailed yellow throated salamander.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply. After all,,you area mere taxpayer.
AFAIK, bleaching of coral is an intermediate stage in a changeover of algal tenants. NBD.
Hi Willis,
Although not relevant to your main point, you missed the best part of the entire article:
This is what makes me think it’s made up, with its ironic reference to The Blob (nickname for the amorphous bunch of special-interest groups, Big Green and supranational organisations). There was me thinking deep warm water was ‘generated’ by the Sun. Seems I got the wrong newspaper…
Pamela Gray:
Sorry Pamela, couldn’t help but think of this.