LaboRape framing...not on Foxy newes

But it's on Sky.
She really has a type that she sticks with. The steady and the one-nighter could be mistaken for brothers.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
Moral decline is an illusion

There's no evidence that people are not as kind, respectful and trustworthy as they used to be. Decades' worth of survey results show that people in 60 countries have perceived a general moral decline for at least the past 70 years. But individuals' evaluation of their contemporaries' morality has remained largely unchanged. Biased memory could be a factor in maintaining the illusion: negative memories tend to fade faster than positive ones, which might help to explain why people believe that past morality was relatively high.

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06137-x.epdf

Two great 5 minutes speeches to the Leeds City Council.

Video link near the bottom of the page.

First speech starts at one minute 15 seconds..


UK local governments are declaring a "climate emergency" and forming committees to implement dystopian plans - The Expose (expose-news.com)

^ that's certainly something you won't read on Fox News. However...
"Now, to be clear, this isn't the most level playing field for viewership comparisons to be made. Carlson's Twitter upload has been streamed steadily since it was posted, without viewers needing to be locked into a specific TV airtime, and offer real-time stats as opposed to DVR/delayed viewer totals taking longer to get tallied. (Not to mention show clips being viewed by tons of people on YouTube and social media, which usually won't be applied to the TV ratings stats directly.) As well, there's no telling how many people clicked onto the video to see what it was, only to click away immediately without watching the full thing."

so in other words trust the number, but not those numbers - got it

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Draining the swamp

Select to expand quote

remery said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

^ Replace "says" with "lies" and I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

I wish Trump would go away but the Democrats are deliberately keeping him popular because he will lose the next election.

Select to expand quote

Rango said..

Paradox said..

remery said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

I wish Trump would go away but the Democrats are deliberately keeping him popular because he will lose the next election.

That's what's called a guess, and also a conspiracy theory. Sure it suits them to run against Donald but he does all his own stunts. The Dems couldn't shut him up if they tried. The legal system might though when it stops dithering, but Jesus, only one indictment so far after all that time. It's a Federal indictment too so it comes with the possibility of a political pardon down the track.

Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Dr. Flavio Cadegiani being indicted on charges of crimes against humanity. Probably won't make it on Fox.

Apparently the alternative Covid 19 treatments he "proved to work" were based on research without proper oversight.

His unethical, fraudulent studies were not approved to be conducted. And they're trying to figure out if the excess deaths recorded were due to incompetent record keeping or incompetent practice of medicine.

accuracy.org/release/prominent-anti-vaccine-doctor-under-indictment-in-brazil/

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

There is a bias to think highly of someone you like or who you feel is similar to you. How do you separate that from reality? i think this sort of thing is common in politics where you forgive the failure of your favorite team and highlight the successes. Similarly you discredit the positives of others and condemn their failures.

Here's something talking about it: fs.blog/mental-model-bias-from-liking-loving/#:~:text=The%20tendency%20to%20judge%20in,associated%20with%20our%20favorite%20celebrities.

I wonder if people see people like Trump in a positive light and can't understand why others see him very negatively and are completely puzzled as to why.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
There is a bias to think highly of someone you like or who you feel is similar to you. How do you separate that from reality? i think this sort of thing is common in politics where you forgive the failure of your favorite team and highlight the successes. Similarly you discredit the positives of others and condemn their failures.

Here's something talking about it: fs.blog/mental-model-bias-from-liking-loving/#:~:text=The%20tendency%20to%20judge%20in,associated%20with%20our%20favorite%20celebrities.

I wonder if people see people like Trump in a positive light and can't understand why others see him very negatively and are completely puzzled as to why.

Don't forget the entire Social Dilemma documentary aspect. Namely, that the internet algorithms feeds you information that you like so that you remain on the sites a little longer. This was only done to earn more revenue, but the result is confirmation of you own opinions and greater polarisation of the community. The most shocking thing about that documentary was when the one of the former designers of the systems was asked what would the result be, he said "Civil war". This was a year or so before the storming of the Capitol building.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Chris 249 said..
Science and religion had less of a clear division back in Galileo's day

Yep, glad we agree.

We do NOT agree about your claim that "revolutionary" claims by Galileo and many other scientists were opposed by most scientists. They weren't.

The fact that science and religion were less clearly divided does not mean that the RELIGIOUS authorities who opposed Galileo were scientists, as you claimed. That is simply untrue. Caccini, for example, allegedly claimed that science and mathematics were heresy because they were contrary to the bible; it is simply untruthful to imply that he was a scientist.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

FormulaNova said..
There is a bias to think highly of someone you like or who you feel is similar to you. How do you separate that from reality? i think this sort of thing is common in politics where you forgive the failure of your favorite team and highlight the successes. Similarly you discredit the positives of others and condemn their failures.

Here's something talking about it: fs.blog/mental-model-bias-from-liking-loving/#:~:text=The%20tendency%20to%20judge%20in,associated%20with%20our%20favorite%20celebrities.

I wonder if people see people like Trump in a positive light and can't understand why others see him very negatively and are completely puzzled as to why.

Don't forget the entire Social Dilemma documentary aspect. Namely, that the internet algorithms feeds you information that you like so that you remain on this sites a little longer. This was only done to more revenue, but the result is confirmation of you own opinions and greater polarisation of the community. The most shocking thing about that documentary was when the one of the former designers of the systems was asked what would the result be, he said "Civil war". This was a year or so before the storming of the Capitol building.

Yeah, it's dangerous stuff. You see lots of likes and think that the majority of people like you or your opinion. You don't even need to type anything and just click a button.

Is this is what happened in the US?

I think you get the same thing in any social environment like a pub, where people will come up with some grand theory and reinforce it with their own belief of it. I guess social media opens that up to lots more people that will agree with you and probably filter out those that don't.

Will that be the end of humanity where someone believes a conspiracy theory, thinks everyone agrees and its true and then starts a war against other people that have done the same thing?

Flat-earthers versus the 9/11 deniers?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

Oh come on, that's just utterly untrue. Trump has failed to do exactly what he said he would do, time and time again.

Trump said he would hire "only the best people"; then he hired Flynn (who he fired); Sessions (who he later abused on Twitter); he hired Tillerson to be Secretary of State and then called him "dumb as a rock", "very weak",. "not mentally qualified" and "disgraceful";

Those insults are about people TRUMP chose after saying he would choose "only the best people" so he is not just a liar according to his own words, but also very bad at choosing people or blaming them unjustly.

Trump said that he would make Mexico pay for the Wall - but he didn't actually do so.

Trump said he wouldn't spend time playing golf if he became president - but he actually played hundreds of golf games while president.

Trump said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act - but he didn't do it.

There's dozens of other lies by Trump. No reasonable person could say he "does exactly what he says he will do" because it's simply untrue.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Hey Paradox, why are you apparently unwilling to answer some simple questions?

Remember those questions I asked earlier; did you not know that Marohasy is PAID to be biased, or did you know that and conceal the fact?

Why can't you answer such simple questions?

A while ago I thought that while we disagreed on many things, you were an honest guy at heart. If you are honest and reasonable, why don't you answer some very simple but very relevant questions? You abuse hundreds of thousands of other people but seem to be running scared of answering some simple questions.

Were you ignorant about Marohasy, or were you dishonest about her?

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

FormulaNova said..
There is a bias to think highly of someone you like or who you feel is similar to you. How do you separate that from reality? i think this sort of thing is common in politics where you forgive the failure of your favorite team and highlight the successes. Similarly you discredit the positives of others and condemn their failures.

Here's something talking about it: fs.blog/mental-model-bias-from-liking-loving/#:~:text=The%20tendency%20to%20judge%20in,associated%20with%20our%20favorite%20celebrities.

I wonder if people see people like Trump in a positive light and can't understand why others see him very negatively and are completely puzzled as to why.

Don't forget the entire Social Dilemma documentary aspect. Namely, that the internet algorithms feeds you information that you like so that you remain on this sites a little longer. This was only done to more revenue, but the result is confirmation of you own opinions and greater polarisation of the community. The most shocking thing about that documentary was when the one of the former designers of the systems was asked what would the result be, he said "Civil war". This was a year or so before the storming of the Capitol building.

I'm not sure it's that much different than only watching 1 tv news over another, reading the Herald Sun rather than the age (vice versa). You still only read/watch/get introduced to ideas and stories that are aligned with your opinions, confirming your position or potentially radicalising it

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Paradox said..

remery said..

I am not a particular fan of Trump per se, and I hate responding to memes, but I kinda thought the issue that most have with Trump is that he does exactly what he says he will do. And of course many simply don't like what he says he is going to do or how he says it.

He is a lot of things and much of what he does seems to rub people the wrong way, but he generally can be trusted to do exactly what he said he was going to do. And I suspect that is why he is so popular, he doesn't have an ounce of slimy politican in him and the bureacrats hate him. That has to be a positive.

Oh come on, that's just utterly untrue. Trump has failed to do exactly what he said he would do, time and time again.

Trump said he would hire "only the best people"; then he hired Flynn (who he fired); Sessions (who he later abused on Twitter); he hired Tillerson to be Secretary of State and then called him "dumb as a rock", "very weak",. "not mentally qualified" and "disgraceful";

Those insults are about people TRUMP chose after saying he would choose "only the best people" so he is not just a liar according to his own words, but also very bad at choosing people or blaming them unjustly.

Trump said that he would make Mexico pay for the Wall - but he didn't actually do so.

Trump said he wouldn't spend time playing golf if he became president - but he actually played hundreds of golf games while president.

Trump said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act - but he didn't do it.

There's dozens of other lies by Trump. No reasonable person could say he "does exactly what he says he will do" because it's simply untrue.

Don't forget the bit where he said Covid was nothing to worry about , after all he had it and he was fine - therefore everyone else would be fine.

He just failed to mention that for him to be fine, he had to be treated at a top tier hospital with a cocktail of treatments including monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir, not HCQ or Ivermectin.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I'm not sure it's that much different than only watching 1 tv news over another, reading the Herald Sun rather than the age (vice versa). You still only read/watch/get introduced to ideas and stories that are aligned with your opinions, confirming your position or potentially radicalising it

Have you watched the documentary? It's a lot more pervasive than just choosing which TV news you choose to watch. It seeps into every social media feed, every suggested article, etc. Given the amount of time lots of people spend browsing and communicating via technology, it effectively presents totally opposed alternate realities to different people.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

D3 said..
I'm not sure it's that much different than only watching 1 tv news over another, reading the Herald Sun rather than the age (vice versa). You still only read/watch/get introduced to ideas and stories that are aligned with your opinions, confirming your position or potentially radicalising it

Have you watched the documentary? It's a lot more pervasive than just choosing which TV news you choose to watch. It seeps into every social media feed, every suggested article, etc. Given the amount of time lots of people spend browsing and communicating via technology, it effectively presents totally opposed alternate realities to different people.

Not watched it.
Can confirm that feeds seem to try lock you into a small chunk of what's available.

I cancelled my YouTube premium subscription because I had such a hard time finding new things to watch. And some of the suggestions were so weird or obviously based what blokes want to see (boobs, obviously) that I got fed up with it.

You watch one SV Delos video and all of a sudden your feed is full of suggestions that are essentially videos of scantily clad women on boats but none with much in the way of cruising information.

But all those machining and welding channels I subscribed to? Instead of giving me lots of suggestions of similar channels it would just suggest videos I had already watched.
Frustrating

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Hey Paradox, why are you apparently unwilling to answer some simple questions?

Remember those questions I asked earlier; did you not know that Marohasy is PAID to be biased, or did you know that and conceal the fact?

Why can't you answer such simple questions?

A while ago I thought that while we disagreed on many things, you were an honest guy at heart. If you are honest and reasonable, why don't you answer some very simple but very relevant questions? You abuse hundreds of thousands of other people but seem to be running scared of answering some simple questions.

Were you ignorant about Marohasy, or were you dishonest about her?

I generally ignore your comments because they always come across as emotional outbursts rather than logical discussion. Your claim that I have abused anyone, let alone 100's is a good example.

For instance your assertion that Marohasy is paid to be biased. How do you seriously make statements like that and condemn conspiracy theories at the same time? Scientists who work outside the government grant system have no way to make a living except by accepting commissions for work by non government sources. Naturally they would be picked up by a source that thinks the work they are doing aligns with the sponsors.

I get that some of those sources are politically aligned and get donations from sponsers that like to support the work they are doing. There are institutions and think tanks on both sides of politics that support research and scientific work. The IPA is one, The Australia Institute, the Climate Council and many others are also in the same basket and they get plenty of airtime as legitimate sources despite the bias of thier funding being from the other side of politics. Just because thier sponsers have a particular view doesn't mean the work they produce is wrong, only that it may support a particular view. There are excellent arguments that most government funded institutions are also highly biased in the thier expected output and mostly support outcomes that gets more funding. A great example is the Great Barrier Reef, with huge amounts of money being thrown at the government research organisations, based on the assertion that there is an imminent threat.

Not unsurprisingly very few of the mountains of work they produce suggest the reef is perfectly healthy and in no need of assistance from us, they all claim imminent disaster despite the emperical evidence showing otherwise. Dr Peter Ridds work with the IPA puts a different and not incorrect light on that. In fact much of his work focuses on the poor and inadequate (even fraudulent) scientific rigor conducted by various government funded organisations benefit from the funding the disaster narrative produces. Is Ridd's work biased? Maybe a little given his history of being fired for that criticism, but he is a highly experienced and expert Marine Physicist, his work is valid and very hard to refute. It also provides an excellent counterpoint to the work coming out of the official organisations. His work contributes significantly to the scientific process.

In an ideal world all science would be independent, but in the real world, none of it is. Funding creates bias in all cases. Scientific effort must be assessed by the credibility of its output. If you want to throw out potentially biased scientific work you would have nothing. It all must stand on and be assessed by it's own merits.

No one is paid to be biased. Bias in inherent in the system and in human nature, the scientific process recognises this and allows a weeding out of poor work by confirmation by repitition and peer analysis.

www.science.org/content/article/can-you-spot-duplicates-critics-say-these-photos-lionfish-point-fraud?fbclid=IwAR2fJsi-8-4t5wBhG0GNyzIzlVQdt54yq75J586ff8bKYYWdYBNM3Vo3Jo8

I get emotional with people who insult (for example) scientists by stating that their bias is "appalling". Your last post abuses people by claiming that their science is "highly biased" and "fraudulent". You've repeatedly abused the BoM by claiming that they are being dishonest and biased. So yes, you are abusing people, by claiming that they are breaching their professional duties and being dishonest.

Don't abuse people and then lie and claim you are not abusing anyone.

Scientists outside the government do not have to apply political bias to policy issues, or to scientific studies. Many professionals are paid to be objective, and many scientists are among them. However, Marohasy is NOT one of those, as the IPA itself states. Her employer states that her job is to apply political ideals to policy questions, NOT to be an objective scientist.

Pointing out that it is a fact that Marohasy is paid to apply political ideals to policy questions has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please try to understand the English language. A conspiracy is a secret. The fact that the IPA pays Marohasy to promote a political approach is not a secret - it's on their website.

Pointing out an admitted fact is not claiming there is a conspiracy, and no honest person who knows English can claim it it. However, Marohasy is implying conspiracies by the BoM and scientists.

By the way, I have never said that science is perfect - however conventional science is much better than fake "science" by people like Marohasy, who is paid to apply specific politics to policy issues as a specific task. The second link you gave refers to "the excellent work of independent analyst Nick Brown" in sniffing out bad science. Someone I know very well works with Nick; for instance they are co-authors on a current paper on the Data Badge. Nick and his other co-workers have devised methods like the GRIM test (which Nick created with James Heathers, ex-USyd) to identify bad science. They do this in their spare time, out of a passion for the truth - and then someone like you dishonestly abuses all scientists for "appalling" bias.

Nick Brown (remember, this is the guy that YOUR source says does "excellent work") states that "science should be conducted with radical transparency" - and no one could say that promoting Marohasy without mentioning that she is PAID to put a spin on things is transparent.

I actually chatted about Marohasy's work with the excellent Nick Brown's co-researcher. They reckon Marohasy's work is crap; her obsession with minor details like the Bourke "record" temperature and use of very small minority dataseys shows a failure to maintain a proper database or the correct use of statistics. So co-researchers of people YOUR links praise say that Marohasy is unreliable.

Oh, and Nick - the guy that your source says does excellent work - says that climate change is happening, and that humans are involved.

Anyway, your claims (like the silly one that Trump does what he says, ignoring the fact that he didn't make Mexico pay for the Wall, he didn't get the ACA overturned, he didn't give out his tax returns, etc) are so dishonest it's not worth dealing with your lies any more.

MAROHASY: "What I do have are whizz-bang gaming computers that can run artificial neural networks (ANN), which are a form of machine learning: think big data and artificial intelligence. My colleague, Dr John Abbot, has been using this technology for over a decade to forecast the likely direction of particular stock on the share market - for tomorrow.
...
During the past year, we've extended this work to build models to forecast what temperatures would have been in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide - for the last hundred years.


jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/

v
v
v
v
READFEARN: "[Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies] told me by email the paper was worthless "on a number of measures" and in his opinion demonstrated "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work".

Schmidt wrote that "conceptually this methodology can't possibly work" because the way the authors had calculated the climate's sensitivity had assumed that all the natural variability was part of the planet's internal systems, rather than being "forced" externally by volcanic eruptions or changes in the output of the sun.
...
Schmidt also says "something went wrong" when Abbot and Marohasy digitised their results, meaning that for the northern hemisphere the data had shifted by about 35 years "so what they think is 2000, is actually 1965". This meant that a huge part of modern warming had been missed.

There's more to it! Their time axis is off by ~35 years and magnitude is too large by ~10%. So their '20th C' is actually 1845-1965.

www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
I get emotional with people who insult (for example) scientists by stating that their bias is "appalling". You've repeatedly abused the BoM by claiming that they are being dishonest and biased. Yes, you are abusing people, by claiming that they are breaching their professional duties and being dishonest. Don't lie and claim you are not.

It's a fact that Marohasy is paid to apply political ideals to policy questions. Scientists outside the government do not have to apply political bias to policy issues, or to scientific studies. Many professionals are paid to be objective, and many scientists are among them. Marohasy is NOT one of those, as the IPA itself states. Her job is to apply political ideals to policy questions, NOT to be an objective scientist.

Pointing out that it is a fact that Marohasy is paid to apply political ideals to policy questions has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please try to understand the English language. A conspiracy is a secret. The fact that the IPA pays Marohasy to promote a political approach is not a secret.

Pointing out an admitted fact (like the fact that the IPA pays Marohasy to apply political ideals) is NOT a conspiracy theory and no honest person who knows English can claim it it. However, Marohasy is implying conspiracies by the BoM and scientists.

By the way, I have never said that science is perfect - however conventional science is much better than fake "science" by people like Marohasy, who remember is paid to apply specific politics to policy issues as a specific task. The second link you gave refers to "the excellent work of independent analyst Nick Brown" in sniffing out bad science. Someone I know very well works with Nick; for instance they are co-authors on a current paper on the Data Badge. Nick and his other "data thugs" have devised methods like the GRIM test (which Nick created with James Heathers) to identify bad science. They do this in their spare time, out of a passion for the truth - and then someone like you abuses all scientists for "appalling" bias. That's a disgusting lie.

Nick Brown (remember, this is the guy that YOUR source says does "excellent work") states that "science should be conducted with radical transparency" - and no one could say that promoting Marohasy without mentioning that she is PAID to put a spin on things is transparent.

I actually chatted about Marohasy's work with the excellent Nick Brown's co-researcher. They reckon Marohasy's work is crap; her obsession with minor details like the Bourke "record" temperature shows a failure to maintain a proper database. So co-researchers of people YOUR links praise say that Marohasy is unreliable.

I think your problem is that you are getting emotional over things I never said. Your claims just don't match my words and you build strawmen arguments on made up statements. For instance I clearly said that the inability of the scientific and professional community as a whole to rapidly accept new information and facts is appalling and I referenced the significant resistance to accepting bacteria as a cause of ulcers as an excellent example. I never targetted individuals or even an organisation with that comment. And it is of course entirely true. I link another below on the use of a breast cancer sample in research for 8 years after it was found to be a skin cancer cell.For you to turn that comment into me insulting or abusing scientists or suggesting the BoM or the people that work there are dishonest is the hight of hyprocracy and an excellent example of why I don't engage with you as a rule. I wish I had stuck with that. You have no credibility and your comments seem to be phrased to intentionally misslead. You seem hell bent on discrediting someone based on adhominem attacks, second hand ones at that. It is the tool of last resort of someone with a failed arguement.

I don't agree with everything Marohasy says or promotes and I have personally called her out on some of the things she has said. To her credit she discontinued those views when I corrected her. I, like most people have the abilty to assess and reject lines of arguments based on thier merits. However that does not mean all her work is rubbish. Much of it is valid and I especially agree with her questioning the BoM's methodologies on the temperature probe readings and the potential for data bias it causes when comparing to mercury thermometers. The fact they have now finally shifted thier methodologies to match an international standard (or even thier own) after sustained pressure highlights the benefit of these lines of questioning.

Marohasy is not the only scientist calling out these problems with data collection and manipulation. www.nature.com/articles/npjbcancer20152

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

I don't agree with everything Marohasy says or promotes and I have personally called her out on some of the things she has said. To her credit she discontinued those views when I corrected her.

Good for you. Would you mind calling her out on her statement in "Biege Reef" where she sensationally misquotes Clark, 2016, "Since 1994 there are (and I quote) no living Acropora colonies, they are dead, along with other corals now covered in mud."

The paper actually says, "By contrast in 1994, no living Acropora colonies were found at either location and the majority of the large faviids that featured so prominently at Bramston Reef in c.1890 were dead, covered in algae and/or mud."

Also, Clark et al.'s paper was not published in the "prestigious journal" Nature (which has an impact factor of 69). It was published in Scientific Reports (which has an impact factor of 5).