BBC’s Coral Propaganda
By Paul Homewood
The BBC is corrupt, and this report is fraudulent:
Coral around the world is turning white and even dying as recent record ocean heat takes a devastating toll.
It has triggered the fourth global mass coral bleaching event, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Bleaching happens when coral gets stressed and turns white because the water it lives in is too hot.
Coral sustains ocean life, fishing, and creates trillions of dollars of revenue annually.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68814016
For a start, there has been no “devastating toll”, as the BBC pretends, from the possibility that the world is slightly warmer than a few years ago. (Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)
But more importantly, Rannard grossly misrepresents the science. Coral does not “turn white” because the water is too hot. Nor is this is a rare occurrence, as the “fourth global mass coral bleaching event” implies.
On the contrary, bleaching is a common event, which can take place for all sorts of reasons, including when the water gets too cold.
As the leading coral reef expert Dr Peter Ridd has explained, “bleaching” is merely part of a natural process, when coral expels algae in order to switch to a different type which is more suitable adapted to new conditions.
According to Ridd, coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef last year reached record levels, despite four supposedly catastrophic bleaching events in the six years prior to 2022. Neither has there been any significant change in corals worldwide.
Rannard’s article has nothing to do with science; it is just more scaremongering propaganda.
This interview with Peter Ridd which followed his annual review on corals last year is worth watching:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
As ever with the Biased Broadcasting Corporation and the other MSM outlets, why let factual science get in the way of a good story.
I have a dream, that one day, the combined forces of the MSM will actually tell the truth about something, anything, in a way that conforms with scientific fact……………oh hang on, what about clicks and sales, good news is a disaster,.
Jennifer Marohasy has some reports on the Great Barrier Reef on her website. Unlike the BBC reporter she has visited and dived on it very recently.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/
This fraudulent information was also on yesterday’s BBC Radio 4 PM programme. Some “expert” woman from NOAA was lying through her teeth without any serious questions being asked.
BBC News yesterday referred to Trump’s claim of being the subject of a witchhunt as an “unproven” claim . Which begs the question: should not the BBC therefore refer to the various climate change claims as “unproven” ?
I’m no fan of Trump but how can anyone doubt he is the subject of a witch hunt?
The same report is getting maximum exposure, Washington Post and New York Times leading with it yesterday. The conspiracy is world wide!
Saw a documentary on coral bleaching. Full of the obligatory ‘boiling ocean’ stuff.
Turns out the coral was being eaten by starfish, whose natural predators are lobsters, which were fished out.
So they declared a fishing ban in the area, and let the lobster population recover. Miraculously, the oceans stopped boiling and the coral stopped bleaching!
Nothing to do with ‘climate change’, everything to do with over-fishing.
Crown-of-thorns starfish were ‘a thing’ years ago, seem to have faded from news recently.
Corals, polar bears, sea ice etc. – the pattern of overheated climate propaganda doesn’t change. They’re all supposed to be on the verge of extinction or permanent damage, but of course it never happens that way and isn’t going to.
I no longer feel the need to be polite when discussing this new breed of “reporters” (I use the term very loosely) for the BBC – Georgina Rannard is an evil lying bitch. She has precisely zero relevant qualifications and is largely as thick as shit on all matters of technology/science. She is, however, working on developing her propaganda skills as determined by her Ministry of Truth employers.
^^^^^^^ what he said! (Very succinctly I may add!)
I saw this item on BBC news. I don’t really know anything about coral, but it looked fine to me – nice and colourful.
Mentioned above is Jen Marohasy’s site, She, with others, have made several reports and videos (under water) of the reef. Reports – plural.
Have an extended look!
She’s a doctor….. PhD (and degree) In history.. Then 7 years as a BBC hack, of which only the last 2 and a bit years have been “science” related. So no academic background in science or climate related subjects. But then a BBC climate reporter only needs to be able to uncritically process climate propaganda received from the climate change blob.
The BBC does not deserve your modest view, far too restrained.
‘Oh my boys, my boys, we are at the end of an age! We live in a land of weather forecasts and breakfasts that set in, shat on by Tories, shovelled up by Labour, and here we are, we three; perhaps the last island of beauty… in the world’
We few we happy few just have to keep buggering on (apols. to Uncle Monty), what else can we do?
Laughing at them helps too I find.
I had to look up the Richard Griffiths scene – did make me laugh but then I realised it was nearly 40 years ago, oh dear where did that time go!?
Indeed, the greatest decade in the history of mankind but at least we haven’t painted the N&S poles black (yet!), despite the insistence of ‘Presuming Ed’ Milliband and assorted lunatics.
I am posting the content of the email below as an “insurance” against its “loss”. Basically I received the list of Met Office weather station sites by CIMO classification as appear on the MO’s main published list of sites. However, I also discovered many other “sites” which they use for climate record purposes that did not appear on this list.
I put it to them that they had not fully disclosed the information they hold and requested classification status of all the other sites.
FOImanager
15 Apr 2024, 13:16
Dear Ray Sanders
Thank you for your e-mail dated 11 April 2024. We will action your request as an internal review under the EIR.
We confirm that our Legal Manager will conduct an internal review of the response to your request reference IMS0197291.
The review will involve a full, independent, reconsideration of the handling of the case as well as the final decision.
The Met Office’s internal target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to you by 10 May 2024. While we are working hard to achieve this, in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you should expect a response, I should advise that the majority are actually currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete.
Kind regards
Regulations Team
Met Office Legal Services
Met Office Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: 0370 900 0100 or +44 (0) 330 135 0000 Fax: +44 (0) 330 135 0050
Email: foimanager@metoffice.gov.uk
It will be very interesting to get the classification of all these previously undisclosed sites – I have a strong suspicion that some of them no longer exist but data is being “attributed” to them. This is the list including some extra sites.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages
Someone has got their Hunstanton mixed up with their Holbeach.
Met Office mapping is notoriously dodgy!
She will undoubtedly say that the ECHR agrees with her and they can’t be wrong
If its reported on the BBC ….thats good enough for me (sarc.)
In another world, one would expect when a “reporter” has a title referencing a specific subject that they would have a background in that subject. That is absolutely not what the political arm of the BBC want. Consequently we are treated to gibberish from activists like Rannard, who’s “qualification” is in modern history, I kid you not. Look her up on Linkedin.
As I have previously pointed out, the marxist weasels in the BBC are so calculating that they now use useful idiots to embellish the pseudo science they push with activism, because someone with a relevant education would probably push back. Rannard et al will just run with and polish the 1urd.
because someone with a relevant education would probably push back
There are occasions when “passers by” are interviewed by a BBC presenter “out and about” and the “passer by” casually mentions that a problem e.g. local flooding, is due to climate change.
Has a non-believer ever been interviewed in a similar situation?
Although would an interview with a non-believer saying “it’s the changeable British weather” make the cut for broadcasting ?
No.
Knowing what you are talking about would ensure that you will never work for the BBC. Lying might get you in, just like the bint who is in charge of their Ministry of Truth.
This one more example of her lack of grasp of the subject is evident as Paul points out. Bleaching has MANY causes, one of which is sub aerial exposure and the coral getting “sunburn”. In respect of the GBReef, the people who push the deliberately false narrative of imaginary bath like water temperatures as causing the bleaching has a small problem and that as usual is that the facts do not fit with their narrative so they ignore them. Indeed, the species present in the GBReef live and indeed thrive in far warmer water (around 5 deg C warmer ) in Indonesia where clearly the corals prefer warmer water!
Where are the BBC fact checkers I wonder, but then we all know the reason they exist and the reality of their politically biased “fact” checking.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. Eric Arthur Blair.
There is twice as much coral in Indonesian waters as in Australian waters.
People seem to have forgotten that, “What doesn’t kill you makes you strong” applies neatly in ecology.
For the main cause of occasional global bleaching events, two words, ‘El Ninos’.
The “Coral story” is strictly one for “the believers.” I suspect that ordinary people who do not go to the Tropics for expensive scuba diving experiences are not fussed.
I’ve told you a trillion times not to exaggerate.
BBC special announcement: the following programme – heat induced coral death – replaces our previously scheduled programme – acid induced coral death – due to lack of acidification.
It’s worth following Australian biologist/science writer, Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. She’s been diving and monitoring GBR for a long time. She has much to say about temperature, not only in reef waters, but also about the manipulation of the Australian temp records as a whole:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/04/more-ocean-temperature-data-more-diving-this-weekend-great-keppel-island/
Does anyone else notice the “Scientist” impersonators are invariably unnamed?
Please look at the Radio Times for next week. It has been edited by Chris Packham (for Earth Day) and is so full of false information I don’t know where to start.
You could start by using it the light the fire….
has anyone seen next weeks Radio Times? Cover to cover drooling over Chris Packham!!!
Coral does not “create(s) trillions of dollars of revenue annually”.
It is has no intrinsic value whatsoever. If the Great Barrier Reef vanished, tourism in Queensland would reduce but the world would not be a single $ poorer.