Adjust your predictions to match the facts

The CONversation this morning posted an article by ABC's favourite Coral whisperer Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. The post is titled "Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef". It certainly lives up to the headline, for it seems the truth has been well and truly drowned.

I posted the following comment, that survived until about lunch time before being removed by the editors:

Doesn't help the media, Ove when you make ridiculously overblown statements about coral mortality. Your recent failed predictions made on your blog about coral armageddon on Ningaloo, following higher than normal water temps is a classic case in point. While bleaching occurred, mortality was no where near as severe as you predicted.

I suspect if you tone down the rhetoric and hyperbole and get some predictions correct you may find the media more inclined to listen 

As to your claims of being a "humble" scientist-pull the other one mate, I believe it plays Narcissus.

My comments regarding failed predictions of coral mortality at Ningaloo were based on a dramatic prediction made by Ove in a post at his blog Climate Shifts titled Mass mortality of corals on West Australian reefs. The prediction was apparently made on May 6, 2011 (see screen shots below). There is an update on reef conditions at Ningaloo and based on this it seems that the predictions of coral mortality made by Ove are in error by a factor of 3! 

The updated information (not dated) reads:

UPDATE-2:  Looks like the Ningaloo reefs are likely to escape major mortality given they have remained just outside the main hot spot.  These reefs are likely to lose about 10% of their corals. Things still remain serious in this analysis for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands (well inside the hotspot – see map and Tyler’s comments).  We will have to wait for the results of the surveys to be completed and analysed.

Looking at the prediction as it reads today, and the update above,  it seems that while the coral mortality predictions were way off the mark, (Ove predicted coral mortality of 30%, the update suggest actual figures of 10%), Ove may have been correct about one part of his "prediction":  the effect of bleaching on the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. However when I downloaded the webpage containing this prediction in May this is how Ove's "Prediction" read:

PREDICTION: We will see large-scale mortality of reef-building corals (30% or more) and many other organisms on reefs from Exmouth to Shark Bay along the West Australian coastline (300 km or more).   This will occur over the next 1-3 months.  Reefs in this region will take more than 10 years to recover (see screen shot below).

Nothing about the Houtman Abrolhos Islands in this early version. Here's how the "Prediction" currently reads:

PREDICTION: We will see large-scale mortality of reef-building corals (30% or more) and many other organisms on reefs along parts of the West Australian coastline.  This will occur over the next 1-3 months.  Reefs in this region will take more than 10 years to recover. Coral reefs around the Houtman Abrolhos Islands look particularly vulnerable.

If only we could all change our predictions to match the facts! Ove is welcome to post an explanation.

To add to the insult at The CON, after my factually correct comment was removed by the editors, they let through this comment, without providing further explanation:

"It would seem our geologist friend who posted earlier this morning has deleted his comments." 

As indicated above my comment was removed by the editors. Seems the truth has been drowned, then cremated!

In his book Future Babble journalist Dan Gardner takes a critical look at expert predictions and the psychology that explains why people believe them even though they consistently fail. Based on the failed predictions at Ningaloo, and the apparent attempt to later change the prediction to match the outcome, it seems ABC's coral whisperer is in fact a coral babbler.

Here's what Ningaloo Atlas says about the bleaching event...(seems 10% will probably be incorrect as well)
http://ningalooatlas.org/2011/05/23/ningaloo-coral-bleaching-update/

Screen shots from Climate shifts,click to enlarge:

1. Downloaded May 18,2011

2. Downloaded today, August 30,2011

Coral Whisperer not listening

ABC has thus far not provided any news of some recent peer reviewed science that shows things aren't so bad on the Great Barrier Reef.
Firstly there's this one that went unreported in June - Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) by Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess and Kerryn A. Johns published in PLOS that found: "This study indicates that at the scale of the whole GBR there was no net decline in live hard coral cover between 1995 and 2009."
They also did not provide any news of this paper recently published in the journal Coral Reefs, titled Assessing loss of coral cover on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef over two decades, with implications for longer-term trends by Hugh Sweatman, S. Delean and C. Syms of the Australian Institute of Marine Science that indicates: "The GBR has clearly been changed by human activities and live coral cover has declined overall, but losses of coral in the past 40–50 years have probably been overestimated."
Between them, these papers go a long way to falsify the alarming picture about the state of the reef made by Coral Whisperer Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, including this picture of 2050 painted on The Science Show in 2005: "The waters of the Great Barrier Reef are also 1.5 degrees warmer destroying the conditions for coral growth and leading to annual bleaching events by 2010 and seeing the almost total loss of coral communities by 2030 as huge mortality events role through the system. The reef is unrecognisable. Many of the beautiful fish have gone, coral has been replaced by seaweeds and less appealing organisms."

Seems the corals are speaking, but the Coral Whisperer only hears what he wants to hear. "Selective hearing" is one of the sure signs of confirmation bias, a symptom of Cargo cult science. Censoring alternate viewpoints another one. 

Slurred by a coral whisperer

Coral Whisperer Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg currently has a post on his Climate Shifts blog that slurs the reputation of Prof. Willie Soon, an Astrophysicist Harvard University's Center for Astrophysics. In comments Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg attempts to slur my reputation as well. For the record here's a copy of the conversation from Climate Shifts.

MarcH says:

July 1, 2011 at 11:23 pm

Ove, Care to comment on this tweet from George Monbiot?

http://twitter.com/#!/georgemonbiot

GeorgeMonbiot GeorgeMonbiot
I got something wrong abt Willie Soon. I suggested he’d never declared his fossil fuel funding. Unlike many, it turns out he has. Apologies.

Ove, How much funding do you receive from Greenpeace?

REPLY

• OveHG says:

  July 2, 2011 at 7:55 am

  Well, I have publically declared that I have worked for Greenpeace, Rio Tinto and many others. Mostly being paid to provide peer reviewed science which was paid to the University and not to me. And all peer reviewed pieces of work. Question is whether you and the research group you are associated with have declared all your potential conflicts Marc. Isn’t there a little coal money you should tell us about Marc?

  REPLY

Marc Hendrickx says:

July 2, 2011 at 8:05 am

Ove,
Perhaps you could clarify your relationship with fossil fuel giant Rio Tinto who are involved in the The Future Reef partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation through their subsidiary Rio Tinto Aluminium. According to the publicity this is a unique example of industry and science working together on an area of mutual and national concern. Comalco has committed more than A$1 million over four years to two Reef research programmes that will be overseen by the Foundation. Comalco of course are now Rio Tinto Aluminium.
In 2008 Rio Tinto produced over 150 Mt of coal.
Please don’t tell me you are the recipient of funds linked to the fossil fuel industry? Given your post on Willie Soon will you now return the funds, or will you accept that you are a hypocrite?
It appears that you are in receipt of over $1.4 MILLION dollars from this arrangement. This is more than Willie Soon has received.

REPLY

Marc Hendrickx says:

July 2, 2011 at 8:17 am

Coal money for me, I wish? What are you implying Ove? Please be clear so my lawyers don’t misquote you.
Are you saying or implying:
A). I am being directly paid by the coal industry as part of some conspiracy to draw attention to your questionable record on climate science?
B). I am indirectly paid by the coal industry via superannuation or small share ownership in a resources company (BHP).

Clearly you are a misguided conspiracy theorist who believes anyone who dares question the great Oz is in someone’s pocket.

REPLY

• OveHG says:

  July 3, 2011 at 10:10 pm

  Marc,

  You are a member of Dr Steven Fityus’s research group at the University of Newcastle, right? He receives funding for his group from the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP). About $500k most recently. Interesting observation in the light of accusations of bias by you aimed at me with respect to my work for Greenpeace in the 1990s.

  With respect to your question regarding Rio Tinto – a company that recognizes the challenge of climate change and wants to move rapidly on the solutions (like all responsible businesses) – there is nothing to ponder too deeply about with respect to my groups involvement. In this case, we undertook research on the impacts of ocean acidification on coral reef organisms, and helped run a highly successful employee program. The later was designed to help employees understand the problems of climate change and the urgency of moving toward solutions. A worthy program which had some great outcomes.

  As long as the science is evidence-based and is not interfered with (which it hasn’t been – otherwise I would exited the project immediately), I have worked on science based projects with a wide range of organizations (as I have repeatedly stated). We must get the best answers to the important questions that lie at the heart of this massive problem. Involving all players makes perfect sense.

  By the way, Marc, I see that you are systematically contacting my research colleagues and students with respect to my professionalism. Could you please tell what your intention or hopes are with respect to this? Is it all for the ABC News Watch cause? I note that you have already slurred me on that site. I am not sure that there is much to be gained from engaging in further discussion with you.

  Ove

  REPLY
  • Marc Hendrickx says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
    

    July 4, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Ove,
    You appear to be in forever need of correction. Prof Fityus is my supervisor, however my project which involves looking at historical rockfalls around Sydney, is not externally funded. The project is being done part time and currently relies on minor funding from the within the department. So you are completely in error on this point and an apology for the smear to both myself and Stephen would be appropriate, (that is if you have any honour).

    As to your contention that I am contacting your research colleagues and students with respect to my professionalism. This is again a falsehood. For the public record I requested Oren Levy a co-author with Ove to explain Ove’s contribution to a paper published in Science. Here is my email to Oren, copied to Ove and Bruce Alberts – Chief editor of Science:

    Dear Dr Levy,
    I am seeking clarification on the authorship of one of your papers. Can you please clarify the contribution made by Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg to your paper “Complex Diel Cycles of Gene Expression in Coral-Algal Symbiosis” Science 14 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6014 p. 175 DOI: 10.1126/science.1196419

    I ask this as Science Journal’s authorship policy states:
    Science’s policy is specifically designed to support the authorship requirements presented in On Being a Scientist: Third Edition, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.† That report emphasizes the importance of an intellectual contribution for authorship and states that “Just providing the laboratory space for a project or furnishing a sample used in the research is not sufficient to be included as an author.”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5961/12.full

    Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has recently intimated his position as last author on papers he claims is due to his position as head of the department and recognises the funding, experience, and infrastructure that invariably goes into a project.

    For publication – Was the credit to Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg in the paper due to his provision for funding and laboratory space, or due to his scientific contribution?

    Regards
    Marc Hendrickx
    ABC NEWS WATCH

    Despite the fact that I made it clear that any response to this email would be for publication both Ove and Oren have requested that their numerous replies be kept private. A request I will respect. Perhaps Ove can take the time to clear the air on this matter on his own blog.

    Thanks by the way for the plug for ABC NEWS WATCH, I recommend visitors start with the Missing News page. They will also find a copy of the comments above and this reply on that site. In regard to so called “slurring”, coming from you in light of your post above and others on Climate Shifts, that would be a case of pot-kettle black.

That was the extent of the systematic contact. You will note the final comment is still in moderation. We will update when and if the great Oz replies. To the question posed concerning authorship we still await a concise response. Perhaps a mainstream journalist can take up where I left off? A job for ABC Environmental reporter activist Sara Phillips perhaps?

The hypocritical Coral Whisperer

A recent post by Coral Whisperer Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on his tax payer funded blog "Climate Shifts" reveals Physicist Professor Willie Soon of Harvard University's Center for Astrophysics has received funding from (shock-horror) companies involved in the fossil fuel industry (including "dirty" coal). However this is no secret, Prof. Soon's sources of funding are well known and have been disclosed as part of the normal publishing process. Other sources of funding have included: the US Government, USAF and NASA.
In comments Professor Hoegh-Guldberg reveals he has also received funding from (shock-horror) companies involved in fossil fuels (including "dirty" coal) - namely Rio Tinto who own Rio Tinto Alcan. (In 2008 Rio Tinto mined over 72Mt of "dirty" coal that helped power our economy, our hospitals, our schools, our theaters, our universities thereby saving and enriching millions of lives in the process). According to Rio Tinto's publicity: The Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation and Comalco Aluminium Limited (Comalco), a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, have formed the Future Reef partnership to support research-based initiatives to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
According to The Great Barrier Reef Foundation. This major four year $1 million partnership between the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and Rio Tinto Alcan was specifically developed to foster understanding about the environmental impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef.
Listed on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's project page is this project:

2009 - 2014	Ensuring a Sustainable Queensland through the Science-Based Solutions to Climate Change on the Great Barrier Reef
Abstract:	Climate change poses a growing threat to the future of the GBR and the industries and people that depend on it (GBR 2006, > $6 billion revenue; 60,000 jobs). Our response to climate change requires the world's best practice science to underpin the development of effective management and policy. This Fellowship research program will bring about a quantum leap in our understanding of how to respond to climate change (including developing key management tools) by attacking core issues (global warming, ocean acidificiation) with significant resources and one of the largest networks of research, industry and management agencies focused on coral reefs.
Researchers:	Hoegh-Guldberg, I. O.
Funding Bodies:	Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Great Barrier Reef Foundation
Total Funding:	$ 1,441,000

The total funding from fossil fuel sources cited on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's blog for Professor Soon is $1,033,100 between 1994 and 2010. It seems that Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has eclipsed that amount in a single grant, worth over $1.4 Million from sources associated with fossil fuels. Not bad for a coral whisperer. Best not to mention Professor Hoegh-Guldberg's connections with Greenpeace.

The question now is: Will Professor Hoegh-Guldberg return the funds tainted by "dirty" coal or risk being branded a hypocrite? I'm sure Rio Tinto would be interested to know what the good Professor thinks of their product.

For the ABC, will they now provide coverage of where Professor Hoegh-Guldberg gets his funding from, including "dirty" coal. Didn't see that on Australian story.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg: the secrets of my success

In conversation Coral Whisperer Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg reveals the secrets of his publishing success:


Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
I'm not getting nasty Ove, I'm merely pointing out some facts. Let's again examine these. For your last 10 papers listed in The Web of Science here is your author position.
1. Validation of Housekeeping Genes for Gene Expression Studies in Symbiodinium Exposed to Thermal and Light Stress: Last author out of 4
2. Mesophotic coral ecosystems on the walls of Coral Sea atolls: second last author out of 7
3. Ocean acidification and warming will lower coral reef resilience: last author out of 7
4. Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate change: first of one
5. Revisiting climate thresholds and ecosystem collapse: fifth of 12
6. Regulation of Apoptotic Mediators Reveals Dynamic Responses to Thermal Stress in the Reef Building Coral Acropora millepora: last of 6
7. Climate change impedes scleractinian corals as primary reef ecosystem engineers: second of 12
8. Complex Diel Cycles of Gene Expression in Coral-Algal Symbiosis: last author of 10
9. Gene expression profiles of cytosolic heat shock proteins Hsp70 and Hsp90 from symbiotic dinoflagellates in response to thermal stress: possible implications for coral bleaching : last author of 5
10. Shallow-water wave lensing in coral reefs: a physical and biological case study: second last of 8.

Based on the evidence it seems a reasonable contribution from OveH for 30% of these, but it appears only a token contribution for 70%. Most of the these where Ove's students are the lead author.

Congratulations Ove you are the master of the publish or perish system. Is your name there:
1. Because of a sizeable contribution to the work?
2. As a token thankyou from grateful students?
3. As a means to allow a softer journey through the review system for students yet to get a name for themselves?, or
4. Because you insist on putting your name on all your students papers, afterall where would they be without you?

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Director, Global Change Institute at Univers…about 12 hours ago
Marc - I am surprised that you are not aware the last author position on publications in many fields (such as marine and molecular biology) goes to the head of the laboratory or research group. This is to recognise the effort that these individuals put into the science, but also as recognition of the funding, experience, and infrastructure that invariably goes into a project. In our field, this is not insubstantial and my calculations have revealed that studies involving molecular biology or field work can often require substantial costs in terms of materials and supplies required to do the science. Obtaining that funding is not an easy task as I'm sure you know.
Life is too short to keep justifying myself to you Marc. Despite your continual insults, my track record and the cohesion of my research group ( some of the finest young biologists in Australia) does speak for itself.
Anyway, enough of this - I have a lab group to run, papers to write, and an institute to direct.

Marc Hendrickx
Geologistabout 11 hours ago
So it was number 4 then! And these are papers you claim as your own. Shame Ove Shame.

Marc Hendrickx
Geologistabout 11 hours ago
In geology we generally take credit for our own work, and not the work of others. If there has been administrative assistance it typically gets a place in the Acknowledgements.

Unjustly appropriating the work of others is one sign of workplace bullying. I pity his personal assistant and his students!
Read the whole conversation at The Conversation.