Thread by @JohnFBruno

@BenjiSJones Yes, their perspective is 100% wrong. The "buying time" argument has been around for decades but has been widely tested and conclusively disproven for a long time. But many gov and NGO scientists have an interest ($$$) in promoting what's essentially Ivermectin for corals.

@BenjiSJones I do sympathize as on the one hand its hard for you to know whom to trust. But, you could ask for citations of evidence in support of extraordinary claims.

And stick to people publishing in areas you are writing about. Ideally, independent (non-gov, non-NGO) academic scientists

@BenjiSJones Until the 2016 mass bleaching, a lot of mainstream coral scientists were at least open to the 'buying time' idea. But since then we've seen the world's most pristine, isolated, best-protected reefs (ie, no fishing or pollution) eg the Northern GBR, utterly devastated by warming.

@BenjiSJones Also see

There are no green-washy, local solutions here. Its simply reduce emissions to zero or lose reefs. Full Stop.

Journalists, please stop spreading misinformation about "super-corals", "restoration", etc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

@BenjiSJones Journalists: There are many coral reef experts more than happy to talk honestly with you about what needs to be done to save reefs. Here's a few:

@ProfTerryHughes
@baumlab
@JezRoff
@BillPrecht
@jbaumann3
@coralsncaves
@DrSeaBove