From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
A small victory!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/great-barrier-reef-suffers-worst-coral-decline-on-record-bbccouk
BBC Admit Great Barrier Reef Report Was “Misleading”
- Tuesday, March 10, 2026
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
A small victory!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/great-barrier-reef-suffers-worst-coral-decline-on-record-bbccouk
Ask Google AI: What causes coral reef bleaching? And you get this:
Primary Causes
Rising Ocean Temperatures:
This is the leading cause of mass bleaching events worldwide.
Ask Google AI for a world map of coral reefs and you will find this:
Doesn’t make any sense in my book
Ask Google:
Of the world’s oceans and seas which one is the warmest?
The Indian Ocean is the warmest of the world’s five major oceans,
while the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea are generally considered
the warmest seas.
Your map is just a snapshot of coral locations … while they were vacationing in tropical paradises.
I am sure they are now pining for the fjords, and will be journeying back soon to their homes in the dark, frigid waters along the Arctic and Antarctic coasts.
/sarc off
Note that there isn’t any coral bleaching north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle.
There ya’ go!
/sarc
North Atlantic Cold Water Coral
Around Scotland, reefs form mainly on continental slopes off the west coast, at a depth of 200 to 400m. But L. pertusa has also been found in shallower water above 150m in several places, notably near Barra and Mingulay. The complex of reefs here covers about 100 sq km and is more than 4,000 years old. Some coral colonies appear to be relatively young (less than five years old), which suggests recruitment is still occurring.
Cold-water coral
A team of scientists and engineers, led by the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) and University of Southampton, are headed to the north Atlantic to revisit a deep, cold-water coral reef area 16 years after it was named a Marine Protected Area, to look for evidence the coral is regenerating.
Research expedition to assess the recovery of Scottish coral reef
Do the corals wear wet suits? 😉
Ask Google? Okay. I asked:
Who are the founders of Google, and how are they implicated in the recently released Epstein files?
The answer from Google AI:
Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Recent unsealed documents from the U.S. Department of Justice (early 2026) and previous litigation involve the founders in the following ways:
Financial Advisement: Jeffrey Epstein acted as a middleman for the founders and JPMorgan Chase, helping the bank land Brin as a client in 2004. Legal filings from the U.S. Virgin Islands allege Epstein was considered an “advisor to the Google founders” by the bank.
Visits to “Little St. James”: Documents released in 2024 and 2026 contain claims that Sergey Brin visited Epstein’s private island on multiple occasions. An accuser, Sarah Ransome, alleged in court exhibits that she met Brin and his then-fiancée, Anne Wojcicki, on the island in January 2007.
Social Interactions and Events: Newly unsealed emails from 2003 show Ghislaine Maxwell inviting Brin to “happily casual” dinners at Epstein’s New York townhouse and film screenings. In one exchange, Brin reportedly offered to bring then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Undated photos from Epstein’s personal collection, released by the House Oversight Committee in December 2025, show Brin smiling at social gatherings alongside other figures.
Larry Page’s Involvement: Page appears in the files roughly as often as Brin, with approximately 293 references. Records suggest he requested the use of Epstein’s helicopter for a trip to St. Barts in 2010 but eventually used a boat instead. Page was also the subject of a long-standing subpoena effort by the U.S. Virgin Islands, which initially struggled to locate him at his private islands to serve the papers.
Note: Being named in these documents is not evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Authorities have stated that the files include names of various business associates and acquaintances who may not have been involved in or aware of Epstein’s illegal activities.
I remember using a snorkle while swimming the barrier reef off Port Townsend in the late 90s. The water was very cool and I wore a shorty wetsuit to stay warm. I very much doubt that there has been any warming since that time.
The inner (Western) edges of the GBR proper are mostly 50k – 100k offshore from the Queensland coast.
Many places in Qld have fringing coral growths off their shores.
These reef patches are regularly exposed to full 12-hours of clear unfiltered sunlight all year round.
And they’re all still there after all these thousands of years.
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy has exposed the inaccuracy of the “dead coral reefs” claims along the Qld coast.
I was there last year, and the reefs looked fine to me!
Why is the BBC completely blanking Miliband’s deal with Newsom?
UK and California deepen ties on clean energy to boost investment
The BBC is far more effective in what it chooses to omit rather than spin.
That is a rhetorical question, right?
Whitewash..! Like some fetid and ramshackle pig-sty, the BBC is let off with a slap on the wrist..!
In prior times of more ethical MSM behavior than the BBC currently exhibits, there would have been a published announcement of a retraction of, and apology for, the original “misleading” article.
Now, just “amending” the article to “include appropriate context” (WTF?) is OK.
And I thought our MSM here across the pond was bad!
First heard about coral bleaching killing the Great barrier reef about 40 years ago.
Here it is again in media.
IF a thing loses 10% per year, every year, it will have
0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9= about 10 percent of it’s original area in 20 years (THAT would be noticed)
After 40 years of 10 percent losses there would be less than 2 percent left, which seems near enough to me to “no more reef”. Per photos and story, yes there is still a large reef. Therefore obvious BS.
Gonna repost this –
I believe coral may be a little tougher and these worries are idiotic.
From http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf
In the northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, 23 nuclear tests with a total yield of 76.3 megatons (TNT equivalent) were conducted across seven test sites located either on the reef, on the sea, in the air and underwater between 1946 and 1958. Five craters were created, the deepest being the Bravo crater at 73 m depth (Noshkin et al., 1997a) (Figs. 2, 3). Post-test descriptions of environmental impacts include: surface seawater temperatures raised by 55,000 C after air-borne tests; blast waves with speeds of up to 8 m/s; and shock and surface waves up to 30 m high with blast columns reaching the floor of the lagoon (approximately 70 m depth)
The results of our 12 year long nuclear war on coral. After less than 50 years, a total of 183 scleractinian coral species were recorded, compared to 126 species recorded in the pre-bomb study.
There are more species now than then.
And from http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N7/EDIT.php
And in reporting the results of a study of a large brain coral that lived throughout the 17th century on the shallow seafloor off the island of Bermuda, Cohen and Madin (2007) say that although seawater temperatures at that time and location were about 1.5°C colder than it is there today, “the coral grew faster than the corals there now.”
Other studies have shown earth’s corals to be able to cope with climate-induced warmings as well as coolings. In a study of patch reefs of the Florida Keys, for example, Greenstein et al. (1998) found that Acropora cervicornis corals exhibited “long-term persistence” during both “Pleistocene and Holocene time,” the former of which periods exhibited climatic changes of large magnitude, some with significantly greater warmth than currently prevails on earth; and these climate changes had almost no effect on this long-term dominant of Caribbean coral reefs. Hence, there is good reason to not be too concerned about long-term changes in climate possibly harming earth’s corals. They apparently have the ability to handle whatever nature may throw at them in this regard.</i>
An unofficial spokesman for the Allied Coral Species Association is thought to have stated – We have survived nuclear war, climate temperature changes of over 10 degrees, planetary magnetic shifts, CO2 levels of 15,000 PPM, giant undersea lava flows and plate tectonics for over 400 million years. We are personally more worried about you.
From talk by Dr. Patrick Moore – one of the Founders of Greenpeace
Today, at just over 400 ppm CO2 there are 850 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere By comparison, when modern life-forms evolved over 500 million years ago there was nearly 15,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level. Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon, more that twice as much as the entire global atmosphere. The oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of dissolved CO2, 45 times as much as in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, which were made from plants that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere account for 5,000 – 10,000 billion tons of carbon, 6 – 12 times as much carbon as is in the atmosphere.
But the truly stunning number is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and turned into carbonaceous rocks. 100,000,000 billion tons, that’s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species that learned to make armour-plating for themselves by combining calcium and carbon into calcium carbonate.
During the last glaciation, which peaked 18,000 years ago, CO2 bottomed out at 180 ppm, extremely likely the lowest level CO2 has been in the history of the Earth. This is only 30 ppm above the level that plants begin to die. Paleontological research has demonstrated that even at 180 ppm there was a severe restriction of growth as plants began to starve. With the onset of the warmer interglacial period CO2 rebounded to 280 ppm. But even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm.
If you are interested in succinct personal computing environments , tho in CoSy , simplified & generalized from APL , I copied your line
0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9
into my
res window and executeds” 9″ =c +/
to count the 20 9 s .
Then
.9 20 _take ‘ * ./ |>| 0.12
to make a list of 20 0.9s and multiply across them ..
See CoSy/Simplicity for the rules of the language in one page .
( This discussion widget has some annoying
featureswhen it comes to displaying code .)Computer programmer here. Would have just written “0.9^20” for the fewest possible characters but then only half of readers would have understood it, assuming they cared.
The days of believable “news” are long gone. Once newspapers, magazines, and news shows competed for audiences and now they are being measured by audience loss. CNN? Some say news has always been biased and it was just accepted but I disagree. News has gone from information to propaganda used by wealthy elites to spread their beliefs using money they don’t know what to do with and can afford to lose some and governments intent on keeping power. Bezos?
Reading anything by HL Mencken or coverage of the Lincoln election 160 years ago is informative. HL has ‘HDS’… Harding Derangement Syndrome.
Its gotten worse but has always been so-
“It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.”
“I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.”
Thomas Jefferson
14 June 1807 Works 10:417–18
Jefferson had cronies who wrote nasty and untrue stories about George Washington- so I guess he knew how bad newspapers can be, having contributed to the problem.
Mark Twain was alleged to have said something similar, but one thing he DID say is that newspapers “rake the whole Earth for blood and garbage.” Emphasis on garbage!
That’s just the “tip of the iceberg” in BBC spin the day scare journalism and modest, low-profile admission afterwards. It’s so easy a robot could do it in a downsized crusades operation.
Wow! I just tried Google.ai from the link in the article and it is very very bad. I did my usual questioning of “what is a minority” followed by “percentage of white or Caucasians in the World’s population” followed by “Are whites a minority”.
It’s answer to the last one is the standard leftist nonsens of oppression and dominance and subjugation and basically whites are bad m’kay.
Oh and of course race is a social construct and so on and soforth. What garbage.
Standard Operational Leftist Nonsens.
“The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy.”
So, I checked for BBC’s ‘standard of accuracy.’ First, I was surprised to find that they actually HAD documented standards. These are found under “Section 3: Accuracy – Guidelines”, and can be seen at https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/guidelines
Here is the first section:
“3.4.1 Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. Relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be weighed and considered to get at the truth.
Where appropriate to the output and wherever possible, content makers should:
gather material using first-hand sourcescheck facts and statistics, identifying important caveats and limitationsvalidate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital materialcorroborate claims and allegations made by contributorsweigh, interpret and contextualise claims, including statistical claims.” [Emphasis mine]
With this as their ‘guidelines’ it’s easy to see that just about any not-so-accurate report could be fit for publication. Particularly since they got away with violating 2 out of the 5 ‘should’ directions in the omissions I kinda wish this had been the standard when I was in school. My GPA would have been much higher.
Finally, to put it in context (which the BBC didn’t), hat tip to Joe Biden:
Dems (or ‘liberals’ in general) prefer “truth over facts.”
More good news.
“it’s not a lie if you believe it!”
I tend to view ALL BBC reports as misleading until I verify them with a reliable source like the Guar… Oh no, not the Guardian, I mean the Telegraph or the Sunday Sport. 🙂
I tried complaining about that BBC article:
Your article is clearly written to lead to the impression that the Great Barrier Reef is in bad shape, but strangely fail to mention that in the last few years it has recorded all time record *high* levels of coral cover. You state:
“A recent report found that parts of the Great Barrier Reef had suffered the largest annual decline in coral cover since records began nearly 40 years ago.”
but deliberately fail to mention that this is only because the drop was from the all time record high level back to just an above average level.
Why did you not include a graph of GBR coral cover so we could put into context this ‘worst coral decline on record’? Is it because this would clearly show up just how much the BBC continues to lie to us about the state of the Great Barrier Reef?
and the BBC replied:
The article aimed to inform readers of the risk of rising temperatures to the Great Barrier Reef.
In the report, we heard from Dr Yves-Marie Bozec, who led the research, said “We ran all of those factors with the most up-to-date climate projections – and the news was not good,” he said and “We forecast a rapid coral decline before the middle of this century regardless of the emissions scenario.”
Additionally, Dr Bozec added that, “The window for meaningful action is closing rapidly, but it hasn’t shut”.
That said, it is, of course, not possible to explore all the various shades of opinion or talking points within the space of a single report. We do try to ensure that over a reasonable period that we reflect the full range of views and perspectives on the stories we feature.
bet they gritted their teeth to even manage that much
I have been an ‘amateur’ coral propagator for decades, only being recently driven out of my hobby by ‘catastrophic’ electricity prices. Through my time, I have been able to grow some of the most beautifully coloured ‘hard’ corals and widely supplied them free around the nation. I know from experience that warm water was the least of my worries … my displays were held between 26C and 28C constant water temperature, cooling in winter and warming in summer. The issue was typically always bacteria causing tissue necrosis which wiped out whole stands of branching corals in a matter of days. The best course of action was to pull the coral out and cut off branches with necrosis well below the infection level and treat with an anti-bacteral. The source of the bacteria was a mystery as all water was UV treated in a continuous loop. Honestly, I don’t think that the coral scientists have any more knowledge in coral husbandry than the good amateur … one told me that they were only good at drying samples in an autoclaver.