Muddying The Waters On The Great Barrier Reef

ABC Media Watch

An article in The Australian suggests there is division among scientists on the danger posed to the Great Barrier Reef. But who is making these claims? But now to the Great Barrier Reef, where the worst-ever outbreak of mass coral bleaching has killed a quarter of the coral on one of the world's natural wonders.
Last month, some 2500 of the world's coral reef experts met in Hawaii and agreed to send a letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, warning him that:

Coral reefs ... are threatened with complete collapse under rapid climate change.
— 13th International Coral Reef Symposium, Letter to Malcolm Turnbull, 25 June, 2016

And urging the Australian government to:

... stop endorsing the export of coal, and specifically to stop or revoke the approval of new mines, including those in Queensland ...
— 13th International Coral Reef Symposium, Letter to Malcolm Turnbull, 25 June, 2016

That letter was widely reported by the Australian media, including:

• The Guardian
• The Daily Mail
• SBS
• Nine News
• and Buzzfeed.

While overseas,

• The LA Times
• The Jakarta Post
• Canada's CBC
• and Mashable

also thought it a big enough story.
But surprise, surprise, one place you couldn't read it was in The Australian whose Environment Editor Graham Lloyd has written several recent stories suggesting coral bleaching ain't as bad as many have claimed:

Great Barrier Reef spared worst of coral bleaching wipe-out
— The Australian, 22 March, 2016

Great Barrier Reef: scientists 'exaggerated' coral bleaching
— The Australian, 4 June, 2016

Great Barrier Reef management top class, says UN chief
— The Australian, 7 June, 2016

Graham Lloyd's latest article on the subject, which appeared just as the Hawaii symposium ended, was headlined:

GREAT BARRIER BATTLEGROUND
— The Australian, 24 June, 2016

With a subtitle to explain that:

The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world
— The Australian, 24 June, 2016

But was this actually right?
Those coral reef experts meeting in Hawaii say no.
Indeed, Professor Ruth Gates, president of the International Society for Reef Studies, which co-organised the symposium, told Media Watch:

Almost every single member of the conference of 2500 people stood up saying that they felt that bleaching and climate change pose a significant threat to the existence of coral reefs. There's really no discussion about whether or not it's serious. It is very serious. There is no debate about it.
— Professor Ruth Gates, President, International Coral Reef Symposium, 30 June, 2016

Graham Lloyd found a debate nevertheless.
Thanks firstly to Professor Peter Ridd of James Cook University, whose views Lloyd has written about before.
Ridd told Lloyd that reef science can't be trusted, because it's only peer reviewed.
Which is a bizarre claim, and one that one of Australia's leading coral reef scientists Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg told Media Watch was:

... just ridiculous.
— Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor of Marine Science, University of Queensland, 29 June, 2016

Adding that peer review is:

... the same process we use when we're studying aeronautics, which produces planes that we travel on ...
— Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor of Marine Science, University of Queensland, 29 June, 2016

Lloyd's report then rehashed a couple of his other recent themes.
That fears about the health of the Barrier Reef have been exaggerated.
And that coral is resilient and can recover from bleaching.
Which, one of his experts assured us, is just:

... "part of a natural selection process from which better-adapted populations can emerge".
— The Australian, 24 June, 2016

One of the two people telling Lloyd that the Barrier Reef will repair itself is an American biologist called Jim Steele.
So, is he 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.
Indeed, when we asked Professor Gates about him, she told us:

I don't know who this person is and if they were anyone serious in the field, I should know them.
— Professor Ruth Gates, President, International Coral Reef Symposium, 30 June, 2016

A little bit of digging reveals that Jim Steele is ex-director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University, where, according to his bio:

He has taught the World of Plants, Nature Study, Natural Sciences for Teachers, Bird Banding, and Bird Identification by Song classes ...
— San Francisco State University

His bio also tells us:

Jim taught at Everett Middle School and Wallenberg High School as a science teacher ...
— San Francisco State University

But possibly of more interest to The Australian than those modest qualifications is the fact that Steele is known to be a climate sceptic and has self-published a book on the subject.
But how and why does someone like him get to be quoted as an authority on coral and the Great Barrier Reef?
We put that to The Australian's Graham Lloyd ... and he pointed us to Watts Up With That, the world's most popular climate sceptic website, where Steele recently published an essay on coral bleaching, in which, according to Lloyd:

... he analyses and synthesizes peer-reviewed coral literature some of which suggests sustained bleaching during the early 20th century.
— Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, Email to Media Watch, 3 July, 2016

But wasn't Jim Steele just a fringe player in the coral debate, we asked Lloyd. To which he replied:

The papers presented by Steele are not fringe.
— Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, Email to Media Watch, 3 July, 2016

Adding

His bird watching expertise is irrelevant.
— Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, Email to Media Watch, 3 July, 2016

Now those who are familiar with Graham Lloyd's work will know that it's not the first time Media Watch has ripped into some of his climate science reporting

• Be it about the chances of a new mini Ice Age.
• The role of aerosols in global warming.
• Or the health dangers posed by wind farms.

And we've often criticised him for giving too much weight to fringe science and dissenting views.
And according to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lloyd's recent work on the Barrier Reef also fits this pattern.

What he's doing is taking a sniff of there being something different to the scientific perspective and promoting it as a widely held belief. It's scandalous. To have someone in such a position of power in the Murdoch press saying these sorts of things is really shocking.
— Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor of Marine Science, University of Queensland, 29 June, 2016

Looking at Lloyd's latest coral bleaching report from her base in Hawaii, the president of the International Society for Coral Reef Studies, Professor Ruth Gates, reaches a similar conclusion, telling Media Watch:

It feels politicised for me and it's not balanced and it's worrying. It feels disingenuous at some level to be putting these views forward which aren't representative of the science.
— Professor Ruth Gates, President, International Coral Reef Symposium, 30 June, 2016

So we asked Lloyd if he believed his reporting should reflect the views of mainstream science. And he told us bluntly:

It clearly does.
— Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian, Email to Media Watch, 3 July, 2016

Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion. And it must be said that in his latest report Lloyd does put forward the mainstream view as well.
But he doesn't tell readers for example, that Jim Steele's real expertise is not in coral but in birds.