If you look at this glossy publication:
… then if you’re an experienced hand at this game, the first red flag is the glossiness = money = trusted source. This is some of it:
‘Ecological grief’ grips scientists witnessing Great Barrier Reef’s decline
Studying ecosystems affected by climate change takes an emotional toll on researchers.
Look at the dateline. Then maybe at the author Gemma, also Emma and Michelle.
Then maybe look at this from the gals:
The consecutive bleaching events that began in 2016 triggered mass death of the reef’s coral cover, which caused a dramatic shift in its species composition. Pandolfi is now investigating new configurations of species that have arisen because of human impacts.
Some estimates say 85% wiped out, some 93%, all due to heat in Australia. The … er … little factor of Queensland heat being a constant in summer, give or take five degrees in 40C, would lead you, if you stopped and thought, that maybe other factors are involved.
That’s before you read these two:
Which paints a different picture, quite at odds with Gemma, Emma and Michelle.
Standard operating procedure, you have no idea whether there even is a problem, you have no idea of the scale of the reef, or of the supposed problem, and you have no feel for the solutions, if any. So, you shriek and emote about it?
What we have here, from the well funded, is wild exaggeration but also false conclusions from emotionally dreamed data. At a minimum, it is far from Settled Science.
And yet how many would you say are buying this narrative wholesale? Especially in schools?
There’s no money in it of course: