[Coral-List] The GBR is in trouble, but not dead

Wed Mar 22 16:17:14 EDT 2017

Thanks, Dennis.  I'm reminded that as scientists, we actually do the same
thing a lot of the time, trying to come up with a catchy title for our
papers that will attract attention, and trying to come up with important
results that will attract the attention of our scientific colleagues, if
not the public.  If we can publish in Science or Nature, that's like
getting a headline story in one of the most prestigious papers.  We're all
human, and we all respond to incentives (or try to).  Our problem is to
keep what we write and say factually correct and not misleading, yet still
catch people's attention.  Not easy.
    Cheers, Doug

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu>
wrote:

> Michael makes an excellent point that we have tended to forget about in our
> discussion of science for the public. The news media is in the business
> of.... news. This reminded me of a story that Jack Sepkoski told me a long
> time ago. For those of you who never had the pleasure of knowing Jack, he
> was probably the first paleontologist to look for ecological and
> evolutionary patterns in very large databases. In particular, he used large
> volumes of published data to parse out details of recurrence for major and
> secondary extinctions. Much subsequent work by others grew out of his early
> methods and data.
>
> When knowledge of his findings expanded beyond the scientific community, he
> was a favorite for interviews. In one case, he was guarded because he could
> tell that the reporter was looking for that "big headline". In the end, he
> was asked a question that he thought was easy to answer directly... "When
> is the next big extinction?" He explained that, because it was at least 30
> million years off, there was plenty of time to go out and buy food and
> bottled water. The headline read.... you guessed it.... "Leading scientist
> warns - go out and stock up on food and bottled water for the next big
> one."
>
> To a large extent, news outlets and popular venues are often looking for
> the "big story". So, perhaps we need to figure out how to make the "big
> story" what we want it to actually be. We also need to be careful to not
> worry about "selling" our ideas.
>
> I have seen posts here that conflate coral growth and reef building. It is
> hard to not take this as akin to "coral death = reef death". Clearly reefs
> and the organisms that create them or reside within them are responding to
> stresses that have a been long in the making. The big challenge is trying
> to think like a non-scientist. Most of the public thinks in a linear
> fashion while reefs (as many/most natural systems) operate in a non-linear
> manner. Clearly, the response of the world's reefs was not a
> straightforward linear response to the stresses that are still driving
> decline. Nor is the solution to simply return natural drivers to the state
> that existed just before the 70s. Consider something as simple as, "it
> isn't the 1° vs the 2° rise in temperature is the issue - it is the
> instability associated with a warmer climate"; it isn't the 1° annual
> temperature that is killing people in Chicago - it's the 5-10° hotter
> summers.
>
> As scientists, we are trained to write well-supported papers to convince
> the other 5 people who do what we do. This is not a formula for effective
> public outreach. Broadening our audience is an important part of the
> solution; but learning to think like that audience is even more critical -
> they aren't "dumb" or "unsophisticated", but they do tend to channel
> information differently than we do. Teaching a coral reefs course to
> humanities students that are smarter than me has been a good start.
>
> Sorry, this started off as just a good story.
>
> Best,
>
> Dennis
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Michael Newkirk <
> michaeljnewkirk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Terry,
> >
> > I completely understand. I was responding to posts in order and didn't
> see
> > that you had already addressed this.
> >
> > Regarding what happened with the NYT, that's bound to happen given the
> > overall knowledge gap between scientists and those who communicate
> science
> > to the public. Perhaps some sort of webinar can be designed by scientists
> > for journalists who are tasked with reporting on science. Reporting about
> > other subjects is different, should be different, than reporting on
> > science. I think that in their position, it can be easy to forget to take
> > off their "story" cap. When you're pushed in journalism to write a
> > captivating story, that opens the door to using elaborate and/or
> inaccurate
> > vocabulary, creating headlines that people will click on, etc. There are
> > ramifications for both science and the paper when this happens.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Michael Newkirk.
> > http://www.editors.ca/directory/michael-newkirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Hughes, Terry <terry.hughes at jcu.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Hal,
> > >
> > > I agree with you entirely about the inaccuracy of declaring reefs
> "dead".
> > > Please allow me to set the record straight about the news coverage of
> our
> > > recent paper in Nature, and the "obituary" of the Great Barrier
> Reef.....
> > >
> > > Firstly, our paper in Nature last week was highlighted by over 1,000
> > media
> > > stories. As far as I'm aware, only one - The New York Times -
> attributed
> > a
> > > quote to me, where I'm supposed to have said that “literally two-thirds
> > of
> > > the reefs were dying and are now dead”. I did not make this statement.
> > >
> > > The NYT found a map that I had published online, showing a north-south
> > > gradient in post-bleaching mortality along the Great Barrier Reef, and
> > they
> > > asked me to explain it for them. What I actually said is contained in
> the
> > > following two email, sent an hour apart, reproduced here in full:
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > ============================================================
> ============
> > > From: Hughes, Terry
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2017 5:50 AM
> > > To: xxxxxx at nytimes.com>
> > >
> > > Hi xxxxx,
> > >
> > > I published that map here http://theconversation.com/
> > > how-much-coral-has-died-in-the-great-barrier-reefs-worst-
> > > bleaching-event-69494
> > >
> > > The Nature paper doesn't include this information.
> > >
> > > There's a serious mistake - the numbers are median % of corals, not
> > reefs..
> > > (reefs don't die, they show a reduction in coral cover). The range is
> one
> > > quartile above and below the median. So 50% of reefs (2 quartile) in
> each
> > > region lost the stated range of corals.
> > >
> > > This is the drop in coral cover measured underwater between March and
> > > November 2016.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Terry
> > > ============================================================
> > > ============================================================
> ============
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Hughes, Terry
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2017 6:45 AM
> > > To: xxxxxxx at nytimes.com>
> > > Subject: Re: NYT - Graphic accuracy check
> > >
> > > Yes, it definitely should be "found that 67 percent of the coral
> colonies
> > > had died in a long stretch north of Port Douglas". Not reefs.
> > > ============================================================
> > > ============================================================
> ============
> > >
> > > So, Coral-Listers can come to their own conclusion as to whether I ever
> > > stated that 67% of REEFS have died, or whether I said 67% of colonies..
> > >
> > > Secondly, Hal has raised the issue of the "obituary of the Great
> Barrier
> > > Reef", which appeared in the media last October. Perhaps more than
> anyone
> > > else, I protested at the time against the concept of writing off the
> GBR.
> > > For example, the Huffington Post wrote the following (which I have
> > > obviously abbreviated):
> > >
> > > "Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists"
> > > (Chris D'Angelo, October 14)
> > >
> > > ..........Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for
> > Coral
> > > Reef Studies, said in an email to HuffPost that he was “not impressed
> by
> > > the [article’s] message that we should give up on the [Great Barrier
> > Reef],
> > > or that it is already dead.”
> > >
> > > “We can and must save the Great Barrier Reef ― it supports 70,000 jobs
> in
> > > reef tourism,” he said. “Large sections of it (the southern half)
> escaped
> > > from the 2016 bleaching, and are in reasonable shape. The message
> should
> > be
> > > that it isn’t too late for Australia to lift its game and better
> protect
> > > the GBR, not we should all give up because the GBR is supposedly dead..”
> > >
> > > Finally Hal, I call your attention to a paper my colleagues and I wrote
> > > recently in Nature Climate Change, entitled "Securing the future of the
> > > Great Barrier Reef" http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/
> > > nclimate2604.html and to my TED talk, "Yes, we can save the world's
> coral
> > > reefs" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5LshSZn5RA
> > >
> > > So, in summary, I am not ready to write off coral reefs - far from it..
> I
> > > have to say I find the "50 reef" concept morally repugnant - who among
> us
> > > has the right to tell hundreds of millions of people that their
> > particular
> > > reefs aren’t important enough to be among the tiny minority of reefs
> that
> > > will be "saved" by dubious promises of restoration? We should try to
> save
> > > all reefs by dealing with climate change.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Terry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov [mailto:
> coral-list-bounces@
> > > coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Lescinsky, Halard
> > > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2017 12:46 AM
> > > To: Coral -List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > > Subject: [Coral-List] The GBR has died (again).
> > >
> > > The Great Barrier Reef died again.  It said so in the headline on Page
> 2
> > > of my local paper in an article originating from the NY Times ("Large
> > > sections of the Great Barrier Reef are now dead").  But unlike the
> GBR’s
> > > previous death (the Outside/Facebook announcement) last fall, this time
> > the
> > > journalism was responsible.  It quotes Terry Hughes as saying
> “literally
> > > two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead”.
> > >
> > > I have great respect for Terry as a scientist and as a leading
> > > international point person for coral reefs, but as in the GBR’s
> previous
> > > obituary, I question the wisdom of such a pronouncement, and indeed
> what
> > it
> > > even means.  Is there an agreed upon definition of what a “dead reef”
> > > constitutes?  For example, is there a maximum live coral cover required
> > > (ie:
> > >  A reef is dead if its live coral cover is below x%) or is there some
> > > other metric to consider?
> > >
> > > I see several main problems with defining a dead reef.  The first is
> that
> > > reefs aren’t alive in the first place- they are an area or an
> ecosystem.
> > > We are unlikely to say that a mountain or a canyon or a swamp is
> “dead”-
> > > these are places with many physical and biological attributes.  Death
> is
> > a
> > > word most often associated with organisms, and dead organisms are dead
> > > forever.  Reef “reincarnation” would not be expected by the public,
> even
> > > though we all know that reefs are structured, even in the best of
> times,
> > by
> > > disturbance and resilience.
> > >
> > > The second is that there are lots of organisms that live on a reef and
> I
> > > have had students enjoy the thriving life on a reef that has no live
> > coral
> > > cover- but lots of fish and urchins and the like.  Is the community
> dead
> > > if the corals are dead?  Third, reefs have a variety of zones, and
> while
> > > most monitoring is at shallow depths (10m) that may bleach intensely,
> > > deeper zones (including the now well-known mesophotic areas) are little
> > > impacted by bleaching.  If the top of a reef is “dead” is that enough
> to
> > > pronounce the entire reef dead?
> > > It could be that any announcement that puts reefs in the news is good
> > > because it raises awareness, but there is a reason that most
> conservation
> > > organizations choose positive rather than gloomy imagery and messages
> > when
> > > raising awareness (and $$).  Negative stories shut people down, and the
> > > danger of crying wolf further threatens to deafen the public’s ears..
> >  I’d
> > > vote for not declaring reefs dead, but if we do, let’s at least agree
> on
> > > an objective definition.
> > >
> > > Hal Lescinsky, Otterbein University
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Hubbard
> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
> (440) 775-8346
>
> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
>  Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>

-- 
Douglas Fenner
Contractor for NOAA NMFS, and consultant
"have regulator, will travel"
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA

phone 1 684 622-7084

Join the International Society for Reef Studies.  Membership includes a
subscription to the journal Coral Reefs, and there are discounts for pdf
subscriptions and developing countries.  Coral Reefs is the only journal
that is ALL coral reef articles, and it has amazingly LOW prices compared
to other journals.  Check it out!  www.fit.edu/isrs/

"Belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."- Jim Beever.
  "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts."-
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Study: Stopping global warming only way to save coral reefs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/study-stopping-global-warming-only-way-save-coral-180833431.html

'Extreme and unusual' climate trends continue after record 2016.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-3932

US Republican idea for tax on carbon makes climate sense
http://www.nature.com/news/us-republican-idea-for-tax-on-carbon-makes-climate-sense-1.21477?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170216&spMailingID=53430881&spUserID=MjA1NTA3MjA0OQS2&spJobID=1102623693&spReportId=MTEwMjYyMzY5MwS2

9304