Scientists changed the data with their time machine – again. Not just the Australian BoM

.

Reef Rebels

0:00 Cold Open

0:25 A New Report on the World’s Coral Reefs

1:22 What the 2020 Coral Data Showed

2:49 The Coral Data “Time Machine”

4:05 Changing the Past: Climate Data Examples

6:12 Could the New Coral Estimate Be Right?

7:11 The Great Barrier Reef Data Problem

8:05 Why AIMS Stopped Publishing the Reef-Wide Average

9:03 AIMS Explains Why

10:21 The Problem With Their “Nuance” Argument

11:29 The New Australian Data Doesn’t Match

13:40 Why the Great Barrier Reef Is Different

15:23 Conclusion: Does This Report Pass Scrutiny?

https://gcrmn.net/wp-content/uploads/…https://gcrmn.net/wp-content/uploads/…https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2…

https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/…

https://realclimatescience.com/altera…

https://jennifermarohasy.com/

For more details on how the graph was calculated from the AIMS data, see https://platogbr.com/308-2/

Dr Peter Ridd has been researching the Great Barrier Reef since 1984, has invented a range of advanced scientific instrumentation, and written over 100 scientific publications. Since being fired by James Cook University for raising concerns about science quality assurance issues, Peter Ridd receives no payment for any of the work he does. Also see   / projectforrealsciencereefrebels  

A quick note on comments: We welcome strong debate about the science, but please avoid accusations of fraud, criminality or deliberate misconduct, or anything like that. As a small channel, comments like that can create legal risk for us, and we do not make those allegations, so we will remove them. Thanks for keeping the discussion focused on the evidence.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Bob
October 25, 2026 2:59 pm

Lying is not okay, AIMS needs to be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate.

KevinM
Reply to  Bob
October 25, 2026 4:31 pm

Giggle. I literally just read “A quick note on comments: We welcome strong debate about the science, but please avoid accusations of fraud, criminality or deliberate misconduct, or anything like that. As a small channel, comments like that can create legal risk for us, and we do not make those allegations, so we will remove them. Thanks for keeping the discussion focused on the evidence.”
(but yeah… agreed)

ResourceGuy
Reply to  KevinM
October 25, 2026 5:02 pm

Trolls continue to get through.

Michael Flynn
October 25, 2026 3:35 pm

. . . welcome strong debate about the science, but please avoid accusations of fraud, criminality or deliberate misconduct, or anything like that.

But accusing AIMS of lying is OK? Or implying criminality that might need to be prosecuted? Only joking, but it’s a slippery slope, this censorship thing.

But I digress.

Scientists changed the data 

Scientists don’t change data. That is unscientific – changing data is the sort of thing that “climate scientists” do, because they are in the same league as “social scientists”, or “political scientists”.

Sorry if this comment offends the ignorant and gullible. I don’t care – why should I?

Pop Piasa
October 25, 2026 4:41 pm

Scientists didn’t change the data, activists did. You can’t be a true scientist when you wear the hat of an activist. You have ditched your detachment.

Chris Hanley
October 25, 2026 5:26 pm

Dr Gonzalez Rivero:
‘… many reefs [have been] affected by the unprecedented marine heatwaves in 2024 …’.
I take it that would be unprecedented in the past 485 million years.

October 25, 2026 6:09 pm

And the other reason the GBR is doing better than others is that tropical cyclone activity in Australia is half what it was in the 70s and 80s