The big news among the herd of independent minds is that, as the Guardian put it,“The earth has reached its first catastrophic tipping point linked to greenhouse gas emissions, with warm water coral reefs now facing a long-term decline”. Of course one problem is that a “tipping point” means a sudden wipeout, not the alleged start of a long slow decline. You’re either plummeting one way or another, but if you find instead you’re on a leisurely stroll it’s not a “tipping point”. Those are when the sled goes off the top of Mt. Crumpet or doesn’t. Another is that it didn’t happen; instead the story is about what might happen “Unless global heating is reduced to 1.2C ‘as fast as possible’”. See, “warm water coral reefs will not remain ‘at any meaningful scale’, a report by 160 scientists from 23 countries warns”. Might, maybe, after a long slow decline, but it’s a great headline, so look for it to appear again and again.

As for instance “World’s coral reefs in almost irreversible die-off, scientists say/ ‘Change is happening fast now,’ according to lead author of new report” from Canada’s state broadcaster. Which was sent by an alert reader who added the comment:

“I was reading about the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool today. It’s consistently the warmest place in all the oceans. It also happens to be (by pure coincidence I’m sure) where over 75% of all coral lives. Silly coral… doesn’t even know where to set up shop after 500 million years of evolution. Well now it’s clearly getting what it deserves”.

And he adds, and, if you send it we may quote:

“I’m sure that when they say ‘the first tipping point’ they mean the other 19 they’ve reported on were only ‘passive’ and not ‘active’ tipping points, right?”

Fair enough, since Time magazine chimes in with the lurid “The World’s First Climate Tipping Point Has Been Crossed, Scientists Say”:

“There are other measures of the environment’s health that scientists are also watching. A September report found that we’ve already passed seven of the nine ‘planetary boundaries’ (including the ocean becoming more acidic and the transformation of natural landscapes) – these are thresholds that keep Earth’s systems hospitable to life and protect against breaching a tipping point.”

So seven of nine, plus one of 25 and how did they pass math? But cue the ominous music, as Time also rumbles:

“The exact moment when Earth will reach its tipping points – moments at which human-induced climate change will trigger irreversible planetary changes – has long been a source of debate for scientists. But they might be closer than we think.”

Unless they’re not. So naturally the CBC also reports that the settled science is worse than anyone thought, as predicted:

“Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected, with the world’s coral reefs now in an almost irreversible die-off, marking what scientists on Monday described as the first ‘tipping point’ in climate-driven ecosystem collapse.”

Scientists, mind you. Not one small group lunging for PR glory with wild claims. Moreover:

“The warning in the Global Tipping Points report by 160 researchers worldwide, which synthesizes groundbreaking science to estimate points of no return, comes just weeks ahead of this year’s COP30 climate summit, being held at the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil.”

COP30 being the big climate gathering which will require hacking down a vast section of the Amazon rainforest to host, hastening another tipping point in the process. But are they really points of no return? If so, why do they keep happening? And how can they? Once you pass the point of no return, there’s no return or what’s the point? So the next one is just another headstone, not a milestone, right?

Alas, that kind of journalism would require brain activity. Instead USA Today drones in with:

“Coral reef collapse drives world across first climate tipping point/ The dire condition of the Earth’s coral reefs means the planet has now reached its first tipping point from human-caused climate change, report finds.”

So it’s too late. Sad but true, bye bye coral, next crisis please? Heck no:

“The second Global Tipping Points Report, released Oct. 13, said warm-water coral reefs – on which nearly 1 billion people and a quarter of all marine life depend – are ‘passing their tipping point.’”

Wait, passing, not passed? How long will it take? Is it like that train “In the Pines“? Actually no, because long as it was, it did eventually and inexorably pass by. Whereas this thing is more like the Pharoah’s Fury/Pirate Ship carnie ride:

“According to the report, widespread coral dieback is taking place and – unless global warming is reversed – extensive reefs as we know them will be lost, although small refuges may survive and must be protected.”

Unless. But if it is, the dead corals live! Hallelujah! Journalism, alas, seems to have passed a tipping point, since the story also says:

“A ‘tipping point’ occurs when a small change tips a system into a new state, causing significant and long-term transformation. With the climate, these points of no return are specific moments when the planet has warmed so much that certain effects become irreversible.”

So this one wasn’t a tipping point, or we don’t know what one is, or… never mind. Write a bigger headline.

OK. Scientific Alarmism is also right there with a host of highly unoriginal and superficial thoughts, under the banner:

“Coral Die-Off Marks Earth’s First Climate ‘Tipping Point,’ Scientists Say/ A surge in global temperatures has caused widespread coral reef bleaching and death around the world”.

But it also says:

“Surging temperatures worldwide have pushed coral reef ecosystems into a state of widespread decline, marking the first time the planet has reached a climate ‘tipping point’, researchers announced today.”

So old Seven of Nine went down the memory hole.

And then there’s Accuweather, with a bigger headline still:

“The planet has entered a ‘new reality’ as it hits its first climate tipping point, landmark report finds/ As humans burn fossil fuels and ratchet up temperatures, it’s already driving more severe heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires.”

A new reality in which data isn’t needed. Of course the IPCC among others confirm that the actual historical record does not show said heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. But data shmata because of an additional problem with such reporting:

“‘We are rapidly approaching multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature,’ said Tim Lenton, a professor at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter and an author of the report published Sunday.”

Could. Unless they don’t. But in any case it’s not about something that has happened or even is happening. It’s about something that might happen later, making it hard to judge the prediction.

Thus the most obnoxious thing about the story is that while presented as breaking news it’s not at all about something that has happened, it is about a speculative future doom that has not yet occurred and may never do so. In the Guardian version:

“The earth has reached its first catastrophic tipping point linked to greenhouse gas emissions, with warm water coral reefs now facing a long-term decline and risking the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, according to a new report.”

A new report. Ah well then. As for Scientific American, it includes this screech:

“‘We can no longer talk about tipping points as a future risk,’ says Steve Smith, a social scientist at the University of Exeter, UK, and a lead author on a report released today about how close Earth is to reaching roughly 20 planetary tipping points. ‘This is our new reality.’”

Except for the bit where it hasn’t happened yet and the one where you say if we act quickly this point of no return can be returned from before or after being irrevocably passed:

“To maintain coral reefs at ‘meaningful scale’, humanity must not only halt the temperature increase but also cool the planet down to around 1 °C above pre-industrial levels by extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to the report.”

We’ll get right on it. On the other hand if your doctor solemnly informed you that thanks to cigarettes you have just died of lung cancer but if you quit you might live, then before acting on the tobacco front you’d consider geting a new physician, right?

It’s so bad that even the Guardian is a model of balance, including this passage:

“The report from scientists and conservationists warns the world is also “on the brink” of reaching other tipping points, including the dieback of the Amazon, the collapse of major ocean currents and the loss of ice sheets. But some experts have questioned the report’s claims about the fate of coral reefs, with one saying while they are in decline there is evidence they could remain viable at higher temperatures than suggested.”

Yes, the same corals that as someone observed, namely us, evolved under much warmer conditions and currently cling for dear life to the warmest water on the planet in much the same way that climate-obsessed journalists cling to the scariest scenarios and wonder where the audience went.

Oh, and speaking of public loss of confidence in slanted science, as we have done repeatedly and do again this week below, the Guardian adds:

“The Global Tipping Points report, led by the University of Exeter and financed by the fund of the Amazon owner, Jeff Bezos, includes contributions from 160 scientists from 87 institutions in 23 countries.”

Imagine what this outlet and others would say if a public university did a tendentious report on climate financed by Charles Koch. But when it’s someone on their side, it’s pure as the driven slush.

But actually we shouldn’t be too unfair. The CBC version also does contain an actual testable prediction:

“For corals to recover, the world would need to drastically ramp up climate action to reverse temperatures back down to just 1 C above the pre-industrial average, the scientists suggested.”

So if instead the corals do recover, will you go past a tipping point from raving into silence? We predict not.