A Response to ABC’s Media Watch’s “Shoot the Coral Messenger” Flimflam!

Guest essay by Jim Steele

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism


Great Barrier Reef With Exposed Coral at Low Tide

Being a Yankee I just recently became aware of the Australian Broadcasting Company’s Media Watch (MW) and The Australian when I first attracted Hoegh-Guldberg and later MW’s wrath by posting my essay, The Coral Bleaching Debate: Is Bleaching the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism or A Prelude to Extirpation?, to the blogosphere. The essay got widespread attention after being re-posted on Dr. Judith Curry and Watts Up With That’s websites. I garnered additional attention when The Australian’s Graham Lloyd posted a few excerpts from the essay as an alternative viewpoint. Oddly the subsequent discussions about coral resilience did not focus on coral biology and the emerging science my essay detailed, but instead Hoegh-Guldberg and MW chose to focus on “Jim Steele” the author. So let me first share my background.

I am a retired ecologist whose research on birds in California’s Sierra Nevada prompted the restoration of a watershed, which I proudly watched revive the vegetation and wildlife. My interests have always been broad, and as past Director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, I developed a well-attended public environmental education program spanning various disciplines in biology, geology, astronomy and hydrology.

To advocate wise environmental stewardship and to better promote a more resilient environment, I have perused thousands of journal papers examining, analyzing and synthesizing the causes of ecological disruption and recovery, in particular the effect of landscape changes and regional climate change. The complex array of problems facing coral over the past million years had long captured my attention as I suspect it does for all ecologists. As with terrestrial systems, coral can be severely afflicted by local landscape changes and the effects of natural ocean oscillations. In contrast as recent research has shown, many reefs unaffected by human inhabitants now look the same as they did 1000 years ago. And that suggests most reef degradation is due to local factors.

I confess to having the bias of a terrestrial ecologist. I see hurricanes destroy large swaths of forest as well as large expanses of reefs. I see similar disruptions from ocean oscillations when dry La Nina conditions promote great swaths of destructive forest fires and El Nino events that cause wide spread coral bleaching. Despite specific differences, I see both ecosystems undergo similar recovery trajectories, often with a predictable succession of organisms. Large swaths of forest can lose 90% of their vegetation yet new vegetation soon appears as seeds long stored in the soil quickly germinate in the open landscape. Pine cones awaiting a fire, now spread their scales to drop their seeds. And buds that were safely sequestered deep within woody tissues quickly sprout. From an ecologists perspective it was no surprise to learn coral researchers are finding “cryptic polyps”, that like buried seeds, or sequestered buds, can quickly re-sheet a bleached coral colony.

Nor should it be surprising to learn bleached reefs due to tropical storms or El Niño’s would experience a succession of different organisms as they recovered. Bleached skeletons are typically first covered by “seaweeds”. Then as seaweed-eating fish multiply and prune back these fleshy algae, light-craving coral begin to slowly return to dominance. Some coral are fast growing like weedy species that first invade a burnt forest, while other coral are slow growing like forest species that inhabit a more stable environment. What was surprising to learn was severely bleached coral reefs can return to pre-bleaching status in less than 2 decades. This is a very rapid recovery compared to forests in the dry American west that often require a century or more to recover. However terrestrial ecologists would not claim that after a devastating forest fire, the trees are on the road to extinction. So claims that more resilient coral will soon go extinct from El Nino bleaching events appear a tad overly dramatic.

Furthermore knowing the Great Barrier Reef was left high and dry just 15,000 years ago when the Ice Age dropped sea level by 400 feet, and then returned to its present glory when sea level rose, made coral resilience a captivating nature story. In addition coral survived the Ice Age’s intense cold and then thrived in warmer waters 2 C warmer than today just 6000 years ago and 1 degree warmer just a thousand years ago. Such resilience to an ever-changing climate suggested scleractinian coral had evolved exquisite mechanisms of adaptation. And it soon became clear the secret to coral success was their symbiotic partners. As I researched the peer-reviewed literature, I became increasingly aware of the emerging science that coral can expel their symbionts which had once allowed them to thrive in a narrow set of conditions (resulting in bleaching) and then acquire new symbionts with different genes that allow them to thrive in a new set of conditions. By this symbiont shifting and shuffling, an increasing number of coral experts have suggested coral could rapidly adapt to climate change.

But such resilience is at odds with Australian coral researcher Hoegh-Guldberg who has made alarming claims that 95% of the world’s coral reefs would be gone by 2050. Coral resilience and adaptive bleaching, due to symbiont shifting, challenges Hoegh-Guldberg’s doom and gloom scenarios of slow adaptation. This debate over adaptive bleaching has been ongoing in the scientific literature since 1993 and has been somewhat divisive. So that this ongoing debate is hardly a contrivance of The Australian’s Graham Lloyd, as MW falsely tried to suggest.

Furthermore that debate had rarely, if ever, been brought to the public’s attention until I posted my essay The Coral Bleaching Debate: Is Bleaching the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism or A Prelude to Extirpation?. After Graham Lloyd quoted a few excerpts in an article for The Australian, Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching, Hoegh-Guldberg and MW launched a campaign to characterize me as a fringe scientist and then attack Lloyd as “muddying the waters” with fringe science. But closer examinations reveal it was Hoegh-Guldberg and MW who were slinging the mud.

Hoegh-Guldberg has long attacked the adaptive bleaching hypothesis in the scientific literature. But he now had a new problem. How to discredit this emerging science of coral resilience without attracting too much attention within a more public arena. My essay contained too many facts and evidence about coral resilience that the public might embrace. So to defend his more alarmist stance, Hoegh-Guldberg engaged in a flimflam that worked like this:

Seek the public’s trust by emphasizing he is the coral expert and suggest Jim Steele is just a fringe scientist. Never discuss or debate any contrary scientific evidence as that only gives credence to alternative explanations. Then quietly step outside the arena of honest scientific discussion, and unscientifically attack the “arguers instead of the arguments”. Finally discredit any journalist who brings public attention to this debate by accusing them of only advocating “fringe science”. As discussed before attacking the arguer was one of Carl Sagan’s key science baloney alerts, and every critical thinker should dismiss such tactics. But discrediting the arguer and avoiding the arguments has always been the preferred and a successful tactic of dirty politics. So Hoegh-Guldberg and MW eschewed mainstream science ethics and chose a more expedient political tactic.

Hoegh-Guldberg initially executed his flimflam on a blog and never once discussed the science I presented. Instead he tries to demean “Jim Steele” as just being a “bird enthusiast”. And then by extension asks who would honestly quote a mere bird enthusiast about coral. But the answer was simple. I was the only scientist who had published an essay that synthesized the latest peer-reviewed mainstream science about coral resilience engendered by shuffling and shifting symbionts. And more importantly I had presented it in away the public could understand. Hoegh-Guldberg and MW apparently did not want the public to entertain such optimistic viewpoints.

Grahm Lloyd was attacked for simply reporting, “But Jim Steele, from San Francisco State University, puts a counter view, arguing the ability of corals to rapidly adjust to changing environments by modifying their symbiotic partnerships has been the key to their success for millions of years.

Steele argues bleaching, whether or not it results in coral mortality, “is part of a natural selection process from which better-adapted populations can emerge”.

“In contrast to researchers like Hoegh-Guldberg who emphasizes coral bleaching as a deadly product of global warming, bleaching is a visible stage in a complex set of acclimation mechanisms during which coral expel, shift and shuffle their symbionts, seeking the most beneficial partnership possible,” Steele says.”

To be clear, I do not suggest that symbiont shifting and shuffling will cure every coral problem. It merely has allowed coral to adapt to changing climates that were warmer and colder than today. It does not protect coral from tropical storms. It offers little protection from being smothered by sediments due to landscape changes. It cannot protect coral from predaceous starfish whose populations exploded due human pollution. Mainstream coral science has reported that 80% or more of coral mortality is due to storms and Crown of Thorns starfish. Bleaching causes only 5 to 10% of coral mortality and despite periodic bleaching, coral have evolved resilience to millennia of ever-changing climates. That Hoegh-Guldberg and MW avoid discussing this emerging science or coral resilience is telling.

I was contacted by one of MW’s “crack scientific investigators” Flint Duxfield. Duxfield emailed me asking for an interview explaining that they were investigating an Australian article by Graham Lloyd and Lloyd had quoted excerpts from my essay. I mistakenly thought Flint was sincerely interested in my side of the debate and uncovering the broader truths. But Flint never questioned any of the facts I had synthesized from peer-reviewed papers by coral experts. Instead Flint stated, “There have been some questions raised about your expertise.”

If you want to evaluate the expertise of a chef, as the saying goes, the “proof is in the pudding.” I knew my facts were quite accurate and welcomed Media Watch’s interview and any efforts to check my facts. Such a fact check would determine my level of expertise. Furthermore I did not want the public to be misled if I had made any mistakes. But it soon became abundantly clear MW was not interested in my “scientific pudding”. They hadn’t even bothered to “taste” it. MW was on a mission to persuade the public not to listen to any facts offered by Lloyd or myself.

I first asked Flint, “Are you a biologist”. He replied, “No!”

I asked, “Did you read my essay?” Flint again said, “No!”

Hmmmm. I now had to question Media Watch’s intentions. How could they evaluate the validity of my essay and expertise if they had never read the essay? Do they claim to be clairvoyants? Or was there another more sinister agenda?

As the interview progressed it was clear that Media Watch only wanted to do a hatchet job on Graham Lloyd, and to do so, they ignored, or perhaps failed to grasp, all my well-researched science, trying only to paint me as an untrustworthy fringe scientist. Flint harped on issues like did Lloyd get your permission to quote you. Or are you retired, Lloyd failed to say.

Flint asked if I was a coral expert. I said that depends on your definition. I have not carried out experiments on coral or monitored changes in coral cover or reef biodiversity. So in that sense I am certainly not an expert. But I am an expert biologist and my expertise in coral biology could be likened to an expert historian. I had perused, analyzed and synthesized hundreds of papers written by coral experts. You judge the expertise of historians by how well they assemble the facts and evidence. So please read my essay. Ask the other experts if had had my facts straight.

I asked Flint if he was aware of the benefits of shuffling and shifting coral symbionts. Again he pleaded ignorance but said Dr. Ruth Gates claimed adaptive bleaching had been disproven. I replied that was an abject lie as evidenced by increasingly published research that supports the adaptive bleaching hypothesis. It is not yet a proven hypothesis but no one has refuted it. When I asked what did Dr. Gates say exactly, Flint backed down saying he didn’t know, but it was written down somewhere. I don’t know if Gates was lying or Flint was bumbling.

One of the earlier predictions of the adaptive bleaching hypothesis stated that a multitude of various symbionts with diverse physiological responses would be discovered. That prediction has been confirmed and Gates has co-authored several papers characterizing some of these newly discovered symbionts. Gate’s research has also explored “assisted evolution” that seeks in part, ways to modify the community of coral symbionts and accelerate acclimation by artificially encouraging symbiont shifting.

In the 2015 paper Gates co-authored, Building Coral Reef Resilience Through Assisted Evolution she wrote, “Exposure to nonlethal light or temperature stress is common on reefs; in natural populations and experimental settings, such conditions have sometimes resulted in enhanced tolerance to coral bleaching (the breakdown of the obligate coral-Symbiodinium symbiosis in response to stress) during subsequent thermal stress events. This process of within-generation acclimatization is achieved by changes in the taxonomic composition [i.e. Symbiont shuffling and shifting] of the algal endosymbiont communities found in corals and/or processes likely involving epigenetic modification.” [my bold]

Knowing Duxfield was interviewing Gates, I felt certain she could confirm that my essay’s assertions about coral acclimatization via symbiont shifting cannot be dismissed as “fringe science”. But I was horrified by MW’s avoidance of the science, choosing instead to amplify Hoegh-Guldberg’s flimflam and belittle my abilities. MW’s concluding “damnation” of Lloyd was he failed to tell his audience I was not a coral expert but just a “bird expert”.

Media Watch’s presentation was titled “Muddying the waters on the Great Barrier Reef” and narrated by Paul Barry. Barry is a talking head whose expertise is mostly in economics, and he too has no expertise in science or biology or coral. Barry is not even a bird enthusiast.

Barry would ask and then reply to his own questions,

“So, is he [Jim Steele] regarded as an expert on coral? Answer, No.”

“Is he known to be an expert on oceans? No, again.”

“So is he a famous climate scientist? No he is not.”

Then Barry prepares the audience for the fruits of MW’s “astute and rigorous investigative reporting” that we would expect from such a devoted watchdog organization stating,

“so we asked Professor Gates about him.”

Gates reply, “I don’t know who this person is….”

That was it! I was flabbergasted! That was all MW asked? Did it matter if Gates knew me? Why was there never a discussion about whether or not I had accurately relayed information on symbiont shuffling and shifting! Why never a question if I had my facts straight. I became quite concerned for the Australian populace. If Media Watch was their watchdog, the fox is guarding the hen house.

In my essay I also reported Hoegh-Guldberg had a history of denying the enhanced tolerance acquired by symbiont shifting. He had a history of exaggeration and circular reasoning that had led other coral experts to accuse him of “popularizing worst case scenarios”, while others have accused him of persistently misunderstanding and misrepresenting the adaptive bleaching hypothesis. While Hoegh-Guldberg falsely argues there is no evidence for increased resilience due to symbiont shifting and shuffling, other researchers state, “flexibility in coral–algal symbiosis is likely to be a principal factor underlying the evolutionary success of these organisms”.

So I was eager to read how Hoegh-Guldberg countered those criticisms in a riveting MW interview. A famous coral expert like him should easily provide counter examples if this mere “bird enthusiast” was ill-informed. But he never refuted a word. Instead he chose to accuse Lloyd of “taking a sniff of there being something different to the scientific perspective and promoting it as a widely held belief. It’s scandalous.” But Hoegh-Guldberg mistakenly equates his perspective the “scientific” perspective. His is just one of many. One would think that MW’s investigative reporting might ask Hoegh-Guldberg why Gates and the other coral experts whose work I referenced, were finding enhanced tolerance of coral bleaching due to symbiont shifting and shuffling. There is more than a sniff of contrasting viewpoints. But MW investigated no further.

But instead as the final “evidence” of my supposed untrustworthiness, MW notes I am a climate skeptic who wrote the book “Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism”. They don’t tell the public I wrote the book due to the same concerns I had for Sierran meadows as I have for coral reefs. The obsession with blaming everything on global warming has misdirected our funding and research efforts away from real local problems that we can address and correct. It wastes funds on worthless remedies. Gates’ call to ban coal mining will never correct the injuries to coral from landscape changes, pollution and dynamite fishing.

Clearly Media Watch was trying to suppress a public discussion about the varying scientific opinions that divide the coral research community. Of course all researchers are concerned about coral as indeed I am. Researchers have long been concerned about bleaching at least since they launched the Great Barrier Reef expedition of 1928-29 and focused on warm weather coral bleaching. But it is local problems we must address.


There is a subset of scientists whose forte is synthesizing diverse data sets and research, evaluating contradictions and assumptions. Historically these synthesizers play an important role in scientific progress as they often see the forest through the trees. The iconic example is Watson and Crick. Initially they did not even know that the adenine and thymine bases were proportional in a genome. Nor did they recognize that Pauling’s failed model was due to an elementary chemistry mistake. Perhaps this was because Watson was also an avid bird enthusiast. Yet their view from the “fringe” allowed a synthesis of all the various avenues of research and that resulted in arguably the greatest discovery of our time, the structure of DNA.

I would suggest that Hoegh-Guldberg and Media Watch embrace the advice of another “bird enthusiast” and theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman. He advised Caltech graduates, “you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

In contrast Hoegh-Guldberg and Media Watch have eschewed that integrity. Instead of promoting a scientific discussion of alternative explanations that is accessible to the public, they have tried to suppress discussion and obscure any evidence that contradicts their tenuous claims. Even a bird-brain can see they do a great disservice to the scientific process. But Hoegh-Guldberg’s persistent efforts to discredit the adaptive benefits of symbiont shifting and shuffling, serve as blatant example of why Feynman also argued “Science is the belief in the Ignorance of Experts.”


Jim Steele is author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert from oz
July 23, 2016 11:22 pm

The alarmist ABC is green thru and thru and they are easy to pick , the left leg is longer than the right so they usually have a pronounced limp .
Usually you can tell when they are lying be watching if their lips move and sound is being expelled media watch has had to make apology’s before but usually with a qualification that makes the apology meaningless .
ABC report longest hottest warmest biggest wettest most ferocious unprecedented lies ever .

Tom Harley
Reply to  Robert from oz
July 24, 2016 12:20 am

Actually, the right leg was removed a couple of decades ago! Along with the busted right wing at ‘their’ ABC. They are pathetic, agenda driven keyboard monkeys. My apologies to monkeys everywhere.
Every few years I see evidence of bleached corals off the Kimberley coast, but they soon return to their usual fabulous colourful state.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Tom Harley
July 24, 2016 2:43 am

Just yesterday, I did listen to ABC news radio when they sendet one of their several mission statements after a news section. The essence of it was:
LOL !!! These hard-core greenish ABC clowns are truly perfect comedians… 🙂

Reply to  Tom Harley
July 24, 2016 4:20 am

of course..Jim wasn’t aware of ove’s beloved status for fearmongering n bullshit hes trotted out BY aunty abc regularly to keep the panic on the reef going to suit their greentards agenda.
theres another I call whinging will..he sounds permanently near tears..either a william or a bill someone from nsw I think? usually with extra drivel from mr98% for extra pathos.
and while MW does do some good investigative shows..this has exposed the fact that WE the public..better double check anything they air..
ABC= australias Pravda

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 24, 2016 7:14 am

If you have seen the movie “300” sometimes the only way to deal with a message is to kill the messenger.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  PA
July 24, 2016 8:45 am

OSHA would not approve of a giant bottomless pit in the middle of the village without a railing.

Reply to  PA
July 24, 2016 9:44 am

An OSHA representative in Sparta would get about the same welcome as a Persian.
Perhaps we can learn from the Spartans.

July 23, 2016 11:23 pm


July 23, 2016 11:39 pm

So Hoegh Guldberg is just a coral collector? Right, that clears up any misconception we might have he has anything worthwhile to say about CAGW because he’s not a renowned climatologist. Media Watch need to be much more careful in giving a platform to such impostors trying to step in the footsteps of giants. Still being such astute media watchers no doubt there’ll be a follow up episode pointing out how Hoegh managed to slip under their guard.

Mrk - Helsinki
July 23, 2016 11:40 pm

“What was surprising to learn was severely bleached coral reefs can return to pre-bleaching status in less than 2 decades”
I have built reefs for the guts of 2 decades and have stated this over and over, bleached sections of reef are the foundation for fast recovery, I tried tell one or two at NOAA in a technical manner how this happens.
But it matters not, they dont want the truth Jim, they want a political narrative.
I posed many questions and put forward many facts re corals on NASA Climate’s facebook and to this day, they still have not answered yet bat away many other less technical questions and claims
I’ve asked researchers who claim coral doom, and none engage, because they dont know anything about corals, that is the truth. Having lived a reef daily, build hundreds with corals reefs, not only have I studied them in a technical sense, after than long you get a feel for how reefs react to different things, light spectrum changes, nutrient inaccessible predators that made their way into the reef tank and the destruction one tiny crab can do in a matter of days.
Reminds me of the Australian kelp forest lie, decimated by a predator the blame is squarely put on warming, which is complete nonsense
We truly live in an age of building concepts and designing science to fit that concept.
Great article

4 Eyes
Reply to  Mrk - Helsinki
July 24, 2016 8:05 am

Valerie Taylor, a long time diver who was interested in sharks, has reportedly seen the GBR bleached in the 1970s and then recover strongly. I guess if this detail doesn’t fit your narrative you just ignore it – after all she is not a coral reef expert like Hoegh Guldberg.

Reply to  Mrk - Helsinki
July 24, 2016 9:48 am

It is obvious that some of the coral are exposing themselves.
One solution to coral bleaching would be to apply suntan lotion to the exposed corals.

Mark - Helsinki
July 23, 2016 11:43 pm

“What was surprising to learn was severely bleached coral reefs can return to pre-bleaching status in less than 2 decades”
This is not surprising to non alarmist people
I have built reefs for the guts of 2 decades and have stated this over and over, bleached sections of reef are the foundation for fast recovery, I tried tell one or two at NOAA in a technical manner how this happens.
But it matters not, they dont want the truth Jim, they want a political narrative.
I posed many questions and put forward many facts re corals on NASA Climate’s facebook and to this day, they still have not answered yet bat away many other less technical questions and claims
I’ve asked researchers who claim coral doom, and none engage, because they dont know anything about corals, that is the truth, other than putting them in acid or studying their biology, but actual living reef evolution, nope. Having lived a reef daily, build hundreds with corals reefs, not only have I studied them in a technical sense, after than long you get a feel for how reefs react to different things, light spectrum changes, nutrient inaccessible predators that made their way into the reef tank and the destruction one tiny crab can do in a matter of days.
Reminds me of the Australian kelp forest lie, decimated by a predator the blame is squarely put on warming, which is complete nonsense
We truly live in an age of building concepts and designing science to fit that concept.
Great article

July 23, 2016 11:44 pm

Wonderful essay. Thank you for highlighting “The idiot syntax of the righteous,” as Emma Cline calls it in The Girls, her novel about the Manson cult.

July 23, 2016 11:45 pm

“Feynman also argued “Science is the belief in the Ignorance of Experts.”
Ok. I believe in His Ignorance.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2016 5:08 am

Ignorance is all you have to believe in.
Its your main stay in life. Your soul occupation.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2016 5:28 am

Scientist..someone with no clue…desperately trying to get one

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2016 8:49 am

In Mosher’s case, it’s the Arrogance of self-proclaimed experts.

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2016 12:55 pm

Steven, you make his point. Feynman would agree with you.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2016 6:53 pm

Yes Mosher, you are something of an expert on ignorance.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 26, 2016 7:43 am

So how are your temperature predictions going, after making your claim you can, you have not stuck your neck out once

July 23, 2016 11:52 pm

Hoegh-Guldberg has been on the Climate Council. They love the Great Barrier Reef because it is there go to scare.They use their bogus climate advocacy as a type of gun held at the “head”of the GBR. One false move and the Reef gets it!. It is like watching an old Cagney movie.
The government straight away spills out some more tens of millions.
Media Watch is a joke. The presenter is paid something like $250,000 or more per year. He has a staff of 9. They produce 15 minutes of television per week. Media Watch is a program made in house for the Australian Broadcast Commission. The ABC always takes the far left green position on global warming and environmental issues. It is fully funded by the government. Its charter is to present both sides of an argument, which it blithely ignores, being captive to PC marxist journalists and editors and a Managing Director who could not care less. Although the new one might make some slight difference.
So as soon as Duxfield said he was from MW, you should have replied you were busy. They love to denigrate anyone not of their political persuasion.

Reply to  Jack
July 24, 2016 12:42 am

That sums them up perfectly Jim and explains why you had to be bushwhacked as a heretic. Just maintain the faith that true enquiring science will out them and all their political séance at some stage.
In that regard I’m enjoying the chickens coming home to roost with wind energy in South Australia although you wish they’d heeded rational science and economics in the first place. Instead we have to endure their emotional train wreck now but it will benefit others as the message gets out. You can fool some of the people..yada, yada..

Reply to  Jack
July 24, 2016 2:49 am

So Media Watch is a TV program? I thought it was some kind of oversight organ.

Get Real
Reply to  Jack
July 26, 2016 5:34 am

Perhaps this is why the ABC and MediocreWatch have rapidly lost credibility with everyone.

July 23, 2016 11:53 pm

ew- don’t let them misdirect your thinking to their stinking.
keep on with what you love.
reason is not coin with these climate catamites.
it’s a better world if you do your own thing.

July 23, 2016 11:55 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Furthermore knowing the Great Barrier Reef was left high and dry just 15,000 years ago when the Ice Age dropped sea level by 400 feet, and then returned to its present glory when sea level rose, made coral resilience a captivating nature story. In addition coral survived the Ice Age’s intense cold and then thrived in warmer waters 2 C warmer than today just 6000 years ago and 1 degree warmer just a thousand years ago. Such resilience to an ever-changing climate suggested scleractinian coral had evolved exquisite mechanisms of adaptation.”
“In contrast Hoegh-Guldberg and Media Watch have eschewed that integrity. Instead of promoting a scientific discussion of alternative explanations that is accessible to the public, they have tried to suppress discussion and obscure any evidence that contradicts their tenuous claims. Even a bird-brain can see they do a great disservice to the scientific process. But Hoegh-Guldberg’s persistent efforts to discredit the adaptive benefits of symbiont shifting and shuffling, serve as blatant example of why Feynman also argued “Science is the belief in the Ignorance of Experts.””
A must read…

July 24, 2016 12:04 am

Media Watch is becoming extreme with their character assassinations.
They are really playing the man, not the ball.
I also think they went over the top with their rant against Dr Maryanne Demasi, an ABC reporter,
saying she should be sacked.
I don’t they will ever forgive her for rightly questioning the widespread prescription of statins.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Jeff
July 24, 2016 9:37 am

I suspect the job of Media Watch is extreme character assassination of “alternative voices” who don’t support the leftist agenda. It sounds like the kind of organization that is funded by people of the George Soros ilk.

Reply to  Jeff
July 25, 2016 10:13 am

Media Watch is typical of the liberal truth finding groups.
1. Examine the statement.
2. Check its conformance to liberal orthodoxy.
3. If if conforms, find factoids and other liberal disinformation to claim it is true.
4. If it doesn’t conform to liberal orthodoxy, find factoids and other liberal disinformation to claim it is false.
Since they are liberal and not honest they can’t tell if something is true or not and can only validate against liberal orthodoxy.

July 24, 2016 12:22 am

Mr Steele: An excellent rebuttal and there not enough stars. Thank you!

Adam Gallon
July 24, 2016 12:50 am

A classic example of ignoring the message & attacking the messenger. Happens every time when somebody from outside the climate clique producing anything that counters the “We’re doomed I tell you!” message.
Susan Cockcroft with Polar Bear Science? She’s a “Dog Expert”, what does she know, Steve McIntyre? He’s just a fossil-fuel shill, Anthony Watts? A mere weatherman.

July 24, 2016 12:51 am

Thank you Jim Steele. Yet another great reef scientist who is Paul Kench.

July 24, 2016 12:58 am

I’m afraid this is what you’re up against, Mr Steele, when you try and debate Warmunistas with facts and science. They refuse to debate with anyone who is knowledgeable enough to show them up as charlatans – because the empirical evidence does not support their alarmist stance. This is why their ONLY defence is to resort to ad hominems. You should look on it as a victory!

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
July 24, 2016 1:22 am

Nonetheless, ad hominems, character assassinations, insults all get under one’s skin (as I know only too well). Apart from being used in lieu of factual evidence, this is what they are designed to do of course. But the observer can see them for what they are, not that that helps to placate the victim’s feelings of hurt and unjust, ungrounded, criticism.

July 24, 2016 12:58 am

Strangely, Jim might have received less grief if he had been “just a journalist”. MW wouldn’t have been able to question his scientific credentials. It would have had to question the credentials of those scientists he was quoting.
Nina Teicholz wrote an exposé of Ancel Keys‘ bad science and political machinations.

The journalist Nina Teicholz, who directly disputes Keys’ theories in her book The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet (2014), writes that if there is a Great Man theory of history … whereby strong personalities steer events using their own personal charisma”, Ancel Keys was, by far, the Greatest Man.”

People accuse her of having got it wrong but they then have to show how she misunderstood the science.
Anyway, it’s interesting to compare the behaviour of Ancel Keys with that of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

Another Ian
July 24, 2016 1:20 am

A fine serve back to “The Hoover” IMO

July 24, 2016 1:23 am

these are jihadis.
they are not now and never will be friends.
you are a kaffir.
there is only one thing they want to do with you.
it ain’t huggin.
don’t even try.

July 24, 2016 1:35 am

Clever antonym for their ABC …

July 24, 2016 1:43 am

Thanks for a good post.
On behalf of thinking antipodeans everywhere, sorry you had to endure the ‘rigourous investigative journalism’ of the pathetic ABC; not all of us whose taxes are squandered funding the ABC would do so if given the choice.
The ABC’s nickname is ‘Aunty’ which probably has something to do with the ignorant gossiping and muck-raking they seem to spend so much of their time endulging in. Take heart from the fact that almost no grown ups in Australia are watching the ABC anyway, much less paying attention to anything their anonymous talking heads have to say.
If you had asked anyone from Australia beforehand, you would have been forewarned that the ABC are the gumment funded refuge of the sort of ‘journalists’ who are too thick to get a job in the corporate networks (which isn’t saying anything good about the rest of our lame stream media, merely pointing out that ‘Aunty’ is the worst of an appalling lot) and given it’s workforce is comprised of bachelor of arts graduates who never grew out of of their demented student politics, the ABC logo should be a watermelon.
Like the BBC, the idea that the ABC are impartial on politics or gullible warming is pure fantasy. Their understanding of ‘science’ is limited to the ‘political science’ they collectively studied while ‘finding themselves’ undertaking their worthless art degrees.
The take away lesson is that If someone from the ABC is speaking and you don’t smell bullshit, then you need to get your nose checked.

Reply to  Erny72
July 24, 2016 6:42 am
CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Erny72
July 24, 2016 7:28 am

@Erny72. As an American, this leaves me wondering: If the ABC is government funded and is not following its charter, why does the Aussie government not crack down on it? Does it not have the authority and means to do so?
Here is the U.S., all (or most) of our lame stream media outlets are private sector organizations with no govt funding. When you add in the fact that they have constitutional protection from govt interference in their activities, there is nothing govt can do when their output is clearly biased. In Aussieland however, I should think there would be a govt bureau or agency with the responsibility to monitor and enforce the ABC charter if ABC is govt funded.

John Graham
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 24, 2016 11:34 am

There should be, but there isn’t.
Although a conservative Coalition (a little to the left of the US Republicans) is in power, it is limited to bluster and empty threats against the soft-left ABC. This simply reinforces the bias of the organisation. The major opposition parties (Labor, to the left of Bernie Sanders, and The Greens, to the left of Jeremy Corbyn) hold this bias to be justified and thus non-existent. Whenever an alliance of the two left parties is in power (eg 2010-13) any restraint applied to the ABC is withdrawn, so no real change is possible.
On the other hand, the ABC speaks only to true believers of the left, and its influence on the swinging middle – the vital group in Australia given compulsory voting – is negligible.

Christopher Hanley
July 24, 2016 1:47 am

“… Hoegh-Guldberg who emphasizes coral bleaching as a deadly product of global warming …”.
There has been no significant net change in the sea surface temperature in the GBR marine park for at least thirty five years:

Robert from oz
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 24, 2016 2:10 am

Not interested in facts just innuendo and supposition but also a touch of self serving sensationalism .

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 24, 2016 4:30 am

Yes which is exactly why tmax was not the problem as I keeps telling fools. Sudden natural variation is the cause and we can do nothing about that

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 24, 2016 4:31 am

If mass bleaching never occurred reef life would be much less diverse, and there would be far less reefs

Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 24, 2016 7:25 am

Christopher, Excellent graphic. Do you have a link where I can download temperature data just for the GBR?

Bubba Cow
Reply to  jim steele
July 24, 2016 9:22 am

links here, Jim:
great piece, thanks, and Einstein was a patent clerk

Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 25, 2016 2:40 am
Reply to  Seth
July 25, 2016 9:28 am

Seth I clicked on your version of Willis Island but got a “Not Found” message. Do you have a link to the data for your graph? Has there been any homogenization recently? That often creates such divergent trends.
Since you were diligent and checked the data, can I infer that you also dont refute the GBR temperature data, only the Willis Island?
You might also find this graph of GBR temperatures of interest mentioned in my original from Hendy 2003 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00338-003-0304-7

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 25, 2016 11:29 am

Christopher thanks for that chart. Of all the things said about the Great Barrier Reef the most common is that the sea temperature has risen and is killing it off.
Bile and bollocks.

Ziiex Zeburz
July 24, 2016 1:49 am

Thank You Australia, Keep what you have at home! If your MW got loose and became CMW ?( “Clinton Media Watch “)

Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
July 24, 2016 2:14 am

Except they love Clinton and hate Trump. I’m no fan of his but bias is bias.

July 24, 2016 1:51 am

Thank you for the very informative article. Australia’s ABC is an utter disgrace. It is required by its charter to present a balanced view. Ha! It depends how you define “balanced”. Somewhere between Pol Pot and Kim Jong-un. Media Watch is one of its most vile and vicious outlets for its version of “balanced”.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  richardX
July 24, 2016 7:46 am

@richardX: I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Erny72 above. Thanks.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 24, 2016 4:05 pm

It’s government (really, taxpayer) funded but largely self regulated. Their way of handling complaints of bias is to examine the case internally and decree that there is no bias. It would take a conservative government with guts and a good majority in both houses to do anything effective. I don’t think it can be reformed. 50-odd years of hiring people from the left has been very effective.

July 24, 2016 2:07 am

Steele is a collateral bystander victim of a media war going on between the left leaning ABC and the Fairfax media with the Murdoch press especially the high quality national paperb the Australian whose environmental writer is Graeme Lloyd the butt of Media Watch’s attack on his coverage of recent bleaching of some of the Great Barrier Reef
The taxpayer supported ABC is a CAGW advicate along with fashionable if contradictory support for gays and muslims

Phillip Bratby
July 24, 2016 2:10 am

Instead he tries to demean “Jim Steele” as just being a “bird enthusiast”. Funny that, Lord Krebs of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change is just a “bird expert”.

July 24, 2016 2:29 am

Excellent article Jim, many thanks.

Tony Marshall
July 24, 2016 3:03 am

Jim, most Australians are far more sensible than the loopy left at the ABC, quite a lot I know have a good laugh at there childish attacks on real science, the attack dogs are let loose on any person who has a different view on climate etc, so don’t feel left out , more people are waking up to the climate fraud every day

July 24, 2016 3:23 am

Welcome to my country. Welcome to free speech in the sciences in Australia.

July 24, 2016 3:41 am

I’m often ashamed the leftist nature of the “reporting” by our ABC but this is simply appalling. Media Watch started as one man’s left leaning but reasonably interesting opinion mouthpiece but has devolved into just another sensationalist, expose-style current affairs show, specialising in bashing conservative and CAGW sceptical positions.
My heartfelt apologies, Jim Steele

Reply to  Analitik
July 25, 2016 1:51 am

Ditto.Gramsci’s long march through the Institutions is
deeply ensconced in Oz. The people’s ABC is a Leftist
Green mouthpiece for Marxist ideology paid for by the
taxes of the middle class workers they despise.

Bob M
July 24, 2016 4:04 am

It has always been a problem in science of the “protection of my product” due to the sheer effort and necessary immersion in ones subject and of course the need to succeed as an expert. I’ve even fooled myself on occasion. To remind myself, here’s the saying that hung on my wall and served me well:
“The greatest obstacle to progress is the illusion of knowledge”.

Mike T
July 24, 2016 4:16 am

Excellent article, Jim, thanks very much. Media Watch is well-known for severe imbalance and the episode you cite is one of the worst I’ve seen, not that I watch it much these days, the bias is unpalatable. One small thing, it’s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a publicly funded organisation, whose continued political lean to the left is a cause of great rancor in large sections of the community.

July 24, 2016 4:31 am

oh I forgot
the NOT insignificant effects of melbourne and sydney and brisbanes sewerage/stormwater outfalls being dragged along the coastline, killing seagrasses and adding far more pharma and chem TO the oceans all along..
is NEVER EVER mentioned.
blame the farmers for runoff, blame anyone and co2 but DONT!! force them to filter process and dump the waste INLAND for reuse as fertiliser on the poor soils that need it!
no…that would need some effort and the money we WASTE on co2 drivel would go a long way to supporting such as a one time big cost then reap benefits forever.

bit chilly
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 24, 2016 12:50 pm

might have been a better use of the tax payer funds that built your de sal plants.

July 24, 2016 5:05 am

I am working on my Climate Science Assessment theory. Whenever you see an article in the media you can be sure that the following check list has been applied:
1. Is the source “on message”? If so believe completely and ignore any possible concerns.
2. If the source is not “on message” then a wrong answer to any of the following will permit the information to be dismissed out of hand:
a) Do we know the original source?
b) If so, is the source an approved one?
c) Was it peer-reviewed?
d) Where the reviewers “approved”?
e) Did the person have a PhD?
f) Was the PhD in one of the approved subjects?
g) Can he or she be associated with a “non-approved” person or organisation like Heartland, for instance?
h) Have they ever been associated with funding from a “non-approved” source like Big Oil or Tobacco.
i) Are they just spokespeople for someone with an opposing view?
j) If you run out of ideas check Sourcewatch.
k) If all else fails, they can be dismissed because they are not “on-message”. When using this option try to include a strawman argument to appeal to the faithful.
You can easily see that the list is valid with a couple of simple tests:
Professor Richard Lindzen. Fails 1 so passing to 2: Passes 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g (dubious), 2h FAIL!
Propagandist Bill McKibben: Passes 1. So everything he says is the truth. No further checks required.
Notice that The Science is not a concern.

July 24, 2016 5:31 am

Jim, expand your thinking on this…
Think of corals as a group of individuals….they can host more than one clade at the same time
..and think of “coral reefs” as this god awful weed bed in your yard
They are actually the water equivalent of a land weed bed…..

Reply to  Latitude
July 24, 2016 7:57 am

A wall of death

Tom in Florida
July 24, 2016 5:55 am

“”The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”
–Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632 ”
How prophetic.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 24, 2016 8:54 am

The Thomas Jefferson quote is describing the current state of “journalism” in the U.S. and other Western nations. We are being lied to folks. Big Time. An entire false reality is created by the Leftwing propagandists in the news media. And the Leftists live in that false reality, like it was real. If you believe what the Leftwing News Media says, then you live in that false reality, too.
Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .
At least, nowadays, there are media outlets that give the other side of the story, so someone seeking the truth can find it if they look hard enough. I worry though about the people who accept the Leftwing propaganda at face value. They are misled, and they vote.

Reasonable Skeptic
July 24, 2016 6:45 am

The best experts are the ones that say they aren`t experts and know they have far more questions than answers Here is a CBC documentary about experts that bring this home.
The problem is that people want to hear black and white not grey. They want their experts to tell them the truth, not to lead them to the truth.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
July 24, 2016 7:04 am

“The problem is that people want to hear black and white not grey. They want their experts to tell them the truth, not to lead them to the truth”
Yes, but they also suffer from two critical delusions, firstly that ‘experts’ (Including scientists) cannot be wrong and secondly that they have sworn some form of Hypocratic oath that assures their honesty.

Reply to  Old'un
July 24, 2016 8:25 am

And those delusions are kept active through the media.

July 24, 2016 7:03 am

The ABC (and SBS) is a a sheltered workshop for Left Wing advocates who love Global Warming, Socialism, Clintons and Islam and hate free speech and Donald Trump. This treatment of Jim Steele is typical of them.

July 24, 2016 7:07 am

Appeals to authority baffle me.
I do not have a PhD in math, yet I will argue that 2 +2 =4*
Ohm’s Law is for everyone to use. You don’t have to be an electrical engineer, nor even an electrician.
The “experts” appealing to authority practice many disciplines as laymen, yet they will challenge others for not being “experts” in a specific field. It is a hollow challenge; the facts speak for themselves.
*Base 10

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Gamecock
July 24, 2016 2:10 pm

… And in all bases above 4, as well.

Rick K
July 24, 2016 7:12 am

Thank you, Jim. I always enjoy and learn so much from you.

John of Cloverdale WA Australia
July 24, 2016 7:21 am

Jim, Flint has been exposed before as a Green stooge in this well written article in the Quadrant (see below), back in March, 2015. Media Watch is run by a fox hunting elitist, called Jonathan Green (no kidding he is a Green by name and a pretend Green by nature). Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have much have much fun in their blogs putting Mister Snotty Nose in his hypocritical place.

Tom Halla
July 24, 2016 8:09 am

If the other side resorts to an ad hominem argument, you are winning. Go for it, Mr Steele !

Kaiser Derden
July 24, 2016 8:24 am

sadly, you should never have done the interview …

July 24, 2016 8:26 am

Great job. You might add the example of Cuba’s healthy reefs. The water is warm but the reefs are healthy because Cuba is so broke it can’t afford fertilizer. No fertilizer pollution = healthy reefs but near starvation for the people. When Venezula collapses and cuts off Cuba’s subsidies, the reefs will be even healthier as Cuba starves.

Reply to  Richard Carlson
July 24, 2016 6:49 pm

Why would Cuba have good reefs due to poverty? Impoverished people denude the landscape, they do not have a choice. Their communities would pour untreated waste into the ocean. Surely Cuba is a classic example of how the Left cause poverty and poverty destroys the environment? I would expect their reefs are dynamited, over-fished and exploited unless the population are not allowed into boats for fear they will cross to Florida. As far as fertilizer goes, that is a great segue to the embarrassing relative Ove has locked in the basement.
More below.

Reply to  J B
July 27, 2016 5:07 pm

Major fertilizer pollution messes up reefs. Cuba can’t afford fertilizer therefore reefs helped. Reefs also hurt by erosion from plowing fields. Cuba can’t afford to run its tractors, so less erosion. Poor people do cut down trees for firewood, but that happened mostly many years ago in Cuba. Darn few trees left.

July 24, 2016 8:37 am

Next time? Write down their info and what they want to talk to you about, tell them you will think about it and get back to them. Then hang up the phone and do some research on them. If you don’t feel as if your viewpoints are going to be addressed the way you want them to, don’t call them back. And if they call you…treat them as if they were a scammer telling you you’re computer called them needing to update the windows (sidenote, my reply was why do my windows need computers…they hung up on me).
Media burns suck and I understand your outrage. But it sounds like MW has no more credibility than the National Enquirer.
So now we all know. 🙂

July 24, 2016 8:40 am

Oddly the subsequent discussions about coral resilience did not focus on coral biology and the emerging science my essay detailed, but instead Hoegh-Guldberg and MW chose to focus on “Jim Steele” the author.
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the man.
The simple fact that Hoegh-Guldberg are arguing the man shows that Jim Steele is correct on coral bleaching. For my part, having lived on remote, uninhabited coral reefs for many years, I also strongly agree with Jim’s position.
Hard Corals grow almost exclusively in the hottest tropical locations on earth. They are almost completely non-existent in temperate and colder climates. To argue that hotter climates is bad for corals is a nonsense. If the earth was to heat up such that the polar regions were now tropical, we would find hard corals in the polar regions.
Coral polyps have no trouble reproducing in massive quantities both sexually and asexually. There are 7 billion people on earth. You can probably find that many polyps in a swimming pool of ocean water. There are probably more polyps in the ocean than grains of sand on the beach or stars in the sky.
And what are these polyps doing? Looking for a solid surface in warm water that nothing is growing on, so that they can attach and start reproducing before they get eaten by something else. This is the limiting factor for polyps, there is only so much exposed rock in the ocean. Most of the ocean bottom is mud. Vast plains of nearly perfectly flat mud. Mud that has rained down from above over the millions of years, and filled in all the valleys, so that only the mountain tops are still exposed. And in this mud you find no corals.

July 24, 2016 8:59 am

Corals grow best in almost crystal clear ocean water. Most of us that live in cities have no idea of how clear the water is where corals are found. We think of the ocean as green or blue, with limited visibility. But once you get away from the coast and the sediment from rivers and the land, the tropical oceans are near crystal clear. Snorkeling is almost like flying, the water is that clear.
However, in the past 50+ years logging of tropical forests has substantially increased and there has been a massive increase in sedimentation along the coast of most tropical nations and this sedimentation is deadly to corals. The once white coral sand beaches of Malaysia in the Malacca Straights for example are now mostly thick brown mud. Tourists used to come from all over to visit these beaches, but that industry has almost completely disappeared

July 24, 2016 9:15 am

Great essay, though I must confess some of it above my head I got most of it.
But as an Australia, I know this: The ABC is the most prejudiced LeftGreen propaganda outfit that I have ever encountered, excepting perhaps the propaganda ministries of the world’s vilest dictatorships. They are known for ambushing conservatives, or anybody who does not buy wholesale the socialist project and its various mantras, such as global warming. It’s a weeping sore on the dying carcass of democratic Australia. And worst of all, as a taxpayer I am forced to contribute to it.
I read a lot of WUWT, but rarely post. Keep it up Mr Watts, you provide some sensible balance to the global idiocy which is really ruining the planet.

July 24, 2016 9:16 am

Dr. Steele, your previous Post on Coral greatly informed me as to how Corals survive within the wondrous but very exacting World we also live in. In part, they farm Coral somewhat like we farm Cattle.
But we Skeptics and other people of ‘mere’ common sense – and those who are almost totally occupied by just trying to survive – must also live amongst the “nattering nabobs of negativism” who’ve increased the stakes and their tactics such that they appear to want to either farm us or destroy us so they can be the next step Humans take along the path of Evolution – or within the eternal battle between Good and Evil if that’s the way some people like to understand or conceptualize it. Instead of the non-skeptics in effect trying to take Humans backward to the good old ‘Utopian’ days of near total rule by Totalitarianism at the least, and then maybe even to the Stone Age, if not back to the age of the Missing Link! [My apologies, especially to the Missing Link.]
So I really enjoyed this Post and your small but telling gems of Reason stemming from your own informed and free, but very ordered mind, which also is and must be a very skeptical mind. Such as:
“Are you a biologist…Did you read my essay”.
And, especially, “But I am an expert biologist and my expertise in coral biology could be likened to an expert historian.”
Once a “Progressive” tried to question my arguments for establishing a secure United States Border between it and Mexico by triumphantly arguing that I had to have “seen the/a border” in order to understand and talk about it/one with any credibility. It was on Twitter, so I just said something which expanded to,”No, *you* are the one who needs to see a border. I can understand borders because I’ve gone to school and have a different mind compared to yours.”

Ed Bo
July 24, 2016 10:17 am

I do find it amusing that a lot of proxy-based paleoclimate studies use increased coral growth as an indicator of higher temperatures. I haven’t seen any that have used the other half of the “hump” — has anyone else?
Also, in a significantly warming world, there should be a poleward expansion of the reefs. Has anyone found evidence of this?

Mickey Reno
July 24, 2016 10:21 am

Brilliant. Thanks for this, Dr. Steele. It’s amazing to think that NOT having to confront or reverse a global biological disaster, but only local, more easily managed problems, would be seen as a good thing. But losing the catastrophic narrative of CO2 threatens all, it threatens their their rice bowl, their NGOs. Andthey can’t allow that, so they attack. Reminds me of the Clintons.

July 24, 2016 10:31 am

Adapting the Mediterranean to the rising waters in the Strait of Gibraltar.

Reply to  PPEGSA (@PresaPuente)
July 24, 2016 3:15 pm

PPEGSA claims: “Adapting the Mediterranean to the rising waters in the Strait of Gibraltar.”
You can’t be serious. Do you honestly think dumping hundreds of cubic miles of rock intot he Med is going to lower the sea surface level in Venice? Did no one discuss the concept of “displacement” with you?
Who’d supposed to pay for this grand debacle? Spain? Morocco perhaps? Two of the richest sovereign state in existence? (/sarc). Really? Somehow I have an idea this is aimed at an institution like the World Bank and it will be paid for with “creative” funding received from taxpayers in countries like Canada, the USA, Australia and England.

Reply to  PPEGSA (@PresaPuente)
July 24, 2016 5:53 pm

@Presa The video of this boondoggle seems a tad off topic.

John Coleman
July 24, 2016 12:27 pm

It is well known and documented that the liberal bias in the U.S. media parallels the ABC in Australia and since AGW is a key issue of liberals it is accepted as gospel. However, Millennials are rapidly abandoning the traditional news sources in the U.S. More and more they are getting their news from Google and Facebook and Twitter. They watch Netflix and You Tube. So the control of the traditional media with their liberal biased Journalists is weakening every year. Some of the skeptical views are finding new readers and viewers. There is hope.

Bruce of Newcastle
July 24, 2016 1:40 pm

The ABC is awful, and we taxpayers have to foot their cost whether we like it or not.
On the adaptation of GBR corals another older article from The Australian newspaper is worth reading:
How the reef became blue again

After bleaching to an unprecedented extent in 2006 — when an estimated 35 per cent of corals were killed, “like a white blanket was thrown over them”, according to Berkelmans — the Keppel reefs have bounced back to an extent that has stunned and delighted him, exciting hope that the reef as a whole may be more resilient to climate change than was thought.
“In 2006, we basically saw the [Keppel] corals acclimatise before our eyes,” says Berkelmans, conducting Inquirer on a tour of what he calls his lab rat reefs. “About 95 per cent of the corals were affected, and we think just over a third died, which was a lot more than we had seen before.
“What surprised us — stunned us, really — is how strongly they have come back. It’s not everywhere . . . we’ve still got reefs struggling. But, generally, you would have to say the coral cover is as good, if not better in places, [as] it was prior to bleaching in 2006, and that has caused us to do a lot of thinking and work on how the corals in the Keppels have coped with bleaching events.”

So the adaptation mechanisms are quite well known. Which is why the yodelling of the catastropharians can be quite funny sometimes.

July 24, 2016 2:45 pm

Jim Steele ==> Welcome to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Wars!
You are now a certified bloodied combatant — if they gave Purple Hearts for such service, you’d get one.

David S
July 24, 2016 2:52 pm

To me a suggestion that the reef will disappear due to 2-3 degrees of global warming is as credible as saying crocodiles will become extinct. Nature has a way of making scientist look and sound like idiots. I suspect crocodiles and coral reefs will be around for many more eons.

Reply to  David S
July 24, 2016 3:02 pm

I always like drawing attention to the fact coral reefs where attacked with thermonuclear weapons by the US Army (Castle Bravo) in the 1950’s. They seem to be doing fine. No worries.
But you Australians have this Maddie Stone person who doesn’t like to be confused by facts of that nature. Makes for some pretty good comedy. 🙂

July 24, 2016 2:56 pm

Jim I was a professional debunker most of my life, my focus was on folks who used questionable statistical practices. I like to think Mark Twain was my inspiration, actually it was my stats professor. I’m one of those people like you who chose to police the activities of my own brethren. I’m a skeptic and it’s my calling. Theorists hate empiricists with good reason and I’m sure you know that.
I suppose I’m not writing to tell you anything you don’t already know, only to say it’s happened to me also and it’s happened to a lot of people I’ve worked with. As the challengers producing the minority report, we never get the accolades, only the mudslinging and denigration. Who remembers the name of the fellow who exposed the Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion or the Ozone Hole (oops, sorry, that hasn’t happened yet but you get the idea).
Skeptics aren’t celebrated. The guy who tears down the Standard Model will be remembered for replacing it, not for tearing it down. You and I work in a far less rarified atmosphere; the folks we give counter-argument aren’t well know, well versed or even well understood. If we’re remembered at all, it’s often as the “bully” who beat up that poor man who was just doing his best to understand the truth…
I don’t know about you, but I do it because that’s what I think the right thing is. I sure don’t do it for money or prestige.

July 24, 2016 3:08 pm

I have emailed Media Watch as follows:
You need to be aware that Jim Steele has put up a vigorous defence of his treatment in Media Watch’s Muddying the waters on the Great Barrier Reef on 18 July 2016:
[link to this web page]
The basis of his defence is that Media Watch attacked the messenger instead of addressing the message.
I suggest that Media Watch should investigate Jim Steele’s statement to see whether the substance of his analysis of coral biology was in fact investigated by Media Watch, or whether Media Watch simply conducted a personal attack based on his qualifications and not on the quality of his work. If the former then I suggest that you write to Jim Steele putting your side of the case and ask him to publish it on the same blogs as his defence (on the basis that that is where his defence would have been read). If the latter, then I suggest that you apologise to Jim Steele on Media Watch (on the basis that that is where your personal attack would have been seen).
I would also like to emphasise to you that we are dealing here with a scientific issue, and science is – or certainly should be – concerned with evidence and not with personal qualifications or reputations. Please note that there are many examples of scientific breakthroughs by unqualified people, ranging from Erasto Mpemba (the Tanzanian school pupil after whom the Mpemba Effect was named) to Albert Einstein (a patent examiner when he developed the theory of Special Relativity).

July 24, 2016 3:29 pm

Your original article would have frightened the life out of Hoegh-Guldberg but pleased anyone that is really concerned with the GBR because of the potential challenge to his funding paradigm.
Keep up the excellent work.
Thank you

Reply to  Denis
July 24, 2016 3:41 pm
Reply to  Denis
July 24, 2016 5:52 pm

Reading Bolt’s experience I had a strong sense of Deja Vu!

M Seward
July 24, 2016 4:04 pm

Jim Steele has stepped into a hornets nest of ecomania by even mentioning the GBR. The GBR is iconinc in Australia for obvious reasons and within Oz’s Big Green it ranks well ahead of Tasmania’s Forests and SW Wilderness these days as a go to cause to promote CAGW/kick centre right politics (as “xeniers”) etc etc
Our ABC is a Green-Left safe house the likes of which would be say the HuffPuff Post in the US except that its government funded like the BBC.
I watched the MW cat scratch job the other night. It was par for the course for MW so Jim has not need single out for special treatment. This sort of sneering at someone with a science background but not a certified climate alarmist ‘expert’ is the norm on the ABC.

Richard G.
July 24, 2016 4:14 pm

Jim, Keep up the great work.
Illegitimi non carborundum est. (Don’t let the bastards grind you down.)
“I became increasingly aware of the emerging science that coral can expel their symbionts which had once allowed them to thrive in a narrow set of conditions (resulting in bleaching) and then acquire new symbionts with different genes that allow them to thrive in a new set of conditions.”-J.S.
Oh no!!! The Great Symbiont Extinction.

Peter O'Brien
July 24, 2016 4:33 pm

Good on you Jim for responding to the slander propagated in Media Watch.
I write opinion pieces for an Australian conservative magazine called Quadrant Online. I saw the Media Watch segment in question which commenced with a criticism of The Australian newspaper (for which Graeme LLoyd writes) for not covering a letter to the Australian government from the Coral Reef Symposium which warned of catastrophic danger to the GBR. The letter was co-signed by Dr Ruth Gates. I did some research and wrote the following article:
which does not address the criticisms levelled at Jim Steele but it does call into question the bona fides of Dr Ruth Gates. Readers might find it interesting.

Reply to  Peter O'Brien
July 24, 2016 5:16 pm

Media Watch denigrates Lloyd for not reporting Gates’ letter and then repeats that Gate’s claims nearly all of the 2500 cora researchers supported her letter. Yet there were only 2 signatories. Her and her colleague. It would be interesting to determine jusr how many of those 2500 would actually sign her letter which narrowly focuses on stopping coal production. I would imagine the majority of coral researchers are more concerned about local disruptions and efforts to sop coal will not address a single problem that is their immediate concern.
I am also sure that enough coral experts have been swayed by global warming fear mongering much like Gaia theorist James Lovelock initially was. He thought CO2 warming would push Gaia’s self regulation past a tipping point, kill off humanity and the only surviving humans would be living in the Arctic. He has since apologized for his wild alarmis, stating climate scientists dont know what they are talking about. I am certain as time passes most coral researchers will realize they too have been duped.

Peter O'Brien
Reply to  JIm Steele
July 24, 2016 5:46 pm

Yes Jim, coverage of the letter was just a red herring to lead Media Watch into the diatribe against yourself and Graeme LLoyd. I hadn’t canvassed the probability that the letter might just be a initiative on the part of the co-signatories. I wish I had. The main point, from the point of view of my article, was that the letter had nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, yet it was presented by Paul Barry as some important scientific communique.
As other commenters have noted, the ABC bias is par for the course and they never (well, hardly ever) apologise or retract. That’s not to say you should not push back.
Good luck and keep up the good work

Reply to  JIm Steele
July 24, 2016 5:50 pm

And likewise to you Peter,
Good luck and keep up the good work!

James Hein
July 24, 2016 6:31 pm

Boat owners on the Great Barrier Reef have reported that many journalists and their ilk often turn up and ask “take me to where there is some coral bleaching” They ignore the vast tracks of healthy coral , take their photo, do their sound bite and head back to shore. The boat owners are sick of the whole thing because it is affecting tourism.
My apologies for using the word “journalist” above, we have very few of these left in Australia. To add to the analogies above the ABC is a one legged pirate with a very termite ridden wooded right leg.

Malcolm Robinson
July 24, 2016 7:28 pm

Well said Jim and congratulations on your ongoing campaign in support of truth and integrity in science.
I was a regular viewer of Media Watch for many years but lost interest when the previous presenter Jonathon Holmes, a green zealot, was in the chair. I became a regular watcher again when Paul Barry, who I regarded as a very competent political reporter, took over. But the Great Barrier Reef episode was the antithesis of objective reporting and was a disgrace.

July 24, 2016 7:43 pm

To the credit of the ABC, they have at least allowed comments on that site. In that they are a step behind fellow propaganda outfit Realclimate, or? someone is going to get a rap over the knuckles.
The ability to ignore science in the favour of populist attention seeking, in this instance kicking farmers is not new to the Green Activists that infest Queenslands once great institutions.
Ove was a contributor to ENCORE, a well designed experiment into eutrophication effects on reefs. The results did not toe the party line and this expensive study was dustbinned, not enjoying the exposure of the likes of Nature, as such a comprehensive study might expect.
The Scare industry has been busy trying to bury it ever since.
Bell PRF, Lapointe BE, Elmetri I (2007) Reevaluation of ENCORE: Support for the eutrophica-
tion threshold model for coral reefs. Ambio 36:416-424
Often with strange logic, from above.
‘However, a comparison of the concentrations of nutrients within the OTIR lagoon with the proposed nutrient threshold concentrations (NTC) for coral reefs suggests that all sites, including the control sites, were saturated with nutrients during ENCORE, and, hence, one would not expect to get any differences between treatments in the algal-growth related measurements.’
What? the pristine One Tree Island atolls into which they injected what were, I understand, higher than could be reasonably expected levels of nutrients were already highly polluted. Surely the coral was already dead?
That farmers in the Great Barrier Reef region continue to be blamed for eutrophication in what is a largely nutrient limited environment on the land and in the sea, suggests the Left go for soft targets from the comfort of their troughs.
When are Sea Shepherd and the Rainbow Warrior visiting the Spratly Islands?

Roger Ailes
July 24, 2016 8:26 pm

Tens of thousands of people got to see what an ignorant liar you are Jim. Nobody that matters reads this poor excuse for a web blog.
[Note- this commenter, an anonymous coward, used a fake name and fake email address to get his self-important putdown comment published here. Such a person should simply be ignored. Based on WUWt policy, it’s likely his future comments will be. /mod]

Reply to  Roger Ailes
July 24, 2016 10:30 pm

Well it does serve as a reminder of how the GreenLeft conduct their debates.
Their other usual line is “get used to it and shut up” .

Reply to  Jannie
July 25, 2016 9:20 am

You’re not wrong. Have a listen to this trio of typical GreenLeft totalitarian prats on Aunty-
Get the picture Jim?
(hat tip Tim Blair)

Reply to  Roger Ailes
July 25, 2016 7:39 am

Dear Algore, Rajenda, Mikey, and “All” 97% Believers:
Thank you for your pointed rebuttal to this Big Oil Shill, and for your most excellent statement of our Post Normal Science!
Yours as always “Before it’s too late!”,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Reply to  Roger Ailes
July 25, 2016 9:00 am

“Nobody that matters reads this poor excuse for a web blog.”
Now here’s a man who can’t even spell irony.

Reply to  Roger Ailes
July 25, 2016 9:12 am

ROTFLMAO Roger. Your comment about this website is quite odd seeing you must be reading it.
And ABC Media Watch never said anything that could ever be misconstrued as a lie, even by you, because they never examined one single bit of the science I presented. They only reported I have bird expertise and now there is a political debate about by knowledge of coral ecology. Apparently you never saw the Media Watch program either.

Reply to  jim steele
July 26, 2016 7:37 pm

You wouldn’t seem quite so “right” if you didn’t get at least some flack of that *You’re a nobody, speaking to nobodies* sort, it seems to me, Mr. Steele.
(And how fitting that it’s coming from an obvious “nobody” ; )

July 24, 2016 11:07 pm

Someone on the Blog thread above suggests we might learn from the Spartans. I agree. They apparently exposed deficient babies at birth – presumably this is why they didn’t have ABC-types running around [sarc]

July 25, 2016 2:59 am

As a foreigner you may not have known that TheirABC is the Green Party’s meeja arm. (And the Australian Greens are the reassembly of the failed Communist Party, so much more extremist than Greens elsewhere.)
The Murdoch Watch programme has never questioned the credentials of Australian of the Year and future President Flim Flammery. Apparently it’s not OK for an actual expert to talk about coral, but it’s fine for a mammalologist specialising in kangaroos to talk about it. Or the atmosphere. Or the sun. Or economic policy. Or grid design. Or anything else.
Conversely, Dr Evans (who actually HAS 6 relevant degrees) should be sneered at as he has been “debunked.”

July 25, 2016 4:43 am

The ABCs Media Watch is classic leftist television. Sculpts its own argument first, then selects ‘media’ that disagrees with the argument, then under its self-proclaimed “authority” and via Barry’s uber-smug delivery discredits in any way it needs to the opposing argument.
That is “Perfect Left”.

July 25, 2016 9:18 am

“Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has worked extensively with the media, believing that scientists need to extend the impact of their science using the full set of communication options.”
He heads the Global Change Institute at Univ. of Queenland whose “researchers” include the notable John Cook of Skeptical Science fame and board members Anna Rose, National Manager for Earth Hour with WWF-Australia and co-founder and Chair of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Unfortunately, highly qualified for their tasks all round. https://www.gci.uq.edu.au/professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg

July 25, 2016 9:50 am

White coral is left behind as a ~ 1mm cover of cyano-bacteria (Rosefilum reptotaenium & species of Blennothrix + Trichodesmium, etc.) moves downward at the rate of ~1cm daily. Also sulphide oxidizers (Beggiatoa) & sulfate reducers (Desulfovibrio) take a role.
High sunlight lets cyanobacteria photosynthesize so much that it creates so much surface oxygen the coral cover of microbes establish a gradient of oxygen through that coral covering. Then come darkness bacteria that oxidize sulfide move onto the surface of the cyano-bacteria covering the coral & take advantage of all that oxygen put out during daylight for “oxidizing” hydrogen sulfide.
However, since those cyano-bacteria take oxygen themselves (for respiration) as well the total draw down of the oxygen creates a niche of altered oxygen ratio at the coral surface & immediately adjacent ocean water. The interface becomes low in oxygen (relative anoxia there) & sulfate reducing bacteria get active in the biofilm covering the upper coral at night. Once a lot of sulfate reducing bacteria put out their hydrogen sulfide that then lets the sulphide oxidizing bacteria overgrow.
It is the combined elevated sulfide with the relative anoxia that causes necrosis in any coral cells. Tthe dying cells giving up what had been their internal compounds that are added into the coral biofilm becomes additional pathogenic microbial substrate.
I have over-simplified the dynamic in interest of readability & have not broached the problem of why the problem happens. I don’t feel qualified to declare why bleaching gets the upper hand in some coral & not in others; so leave that for others to form their own idea about the most important driver.
A mini-review of “pathogen ecology” may interest some by Sato, et al. (2016) “Integrated approach to understanding the onset and pathogenesis of black band disease in corals”; originally published in journal Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 18, issue. Also see Meyer, et al. (2016) ” Microbiome shifts and the inhibition of quorum sensing by Black Band Disease cyan9bacteria”, originally published in ISME Journal 10. Authors suggest lyngbic acid ( a cyanobacteria metabolite) throws of natural quorum sensing at the downward leading edge (black band interface between bleached part & live part of a coral). Also try an earlier study by Sato, et al. (2013) ” Pyrosequencing-based profiling of archaeal and bacterial 16S rRNA genes identifies a novel archaeon associated with black band disease in corals”; originally published injournal Environ. Microbiology, 15(11)

July 25, 2016 3:40 pm

This is via Google News
If you find it paywalled then search Google for
Reef scientists say Media Watch is bleaching the facts

Transport by Zeppelin
July 26, 2016 7:15 pm

Your article, Mr Steele, emphatically & sadly demonstrates that a ‘sorry state of affairs’ exists even in a supposed free, tolerant & enlightened country like Australia

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights