Yeah, but some amongst us still will not know who to believe #cognitivedissonance
You seem to be missing the point. The article highlighted by Maine Road is balanced and allows for variables. It is not alarmist nor does it seek to be sensationalist to further an agenda, unlike the manipulation of data by Cook's University (#50).
The marine physicist was sufficiently perturbed by the unscientific practice, occasioned by a supposedly respectable place of learning, that he felt compelled to become a whistle blower - and was sacked as a result.
If you take stock of what he says, essentially they
randomly started the data from a coral high point in 2009 and used the figures taken from a 2018 low point, whilst conveniently ignoring the latest two years results (where it just happens to have recovered well), to come up with a figure to suit their dubious purposes.
Using the same flawed (non) random selection of years, a climate change denier could have taken a historic low from the 1990's up until the current 2020 data to show that the GBR has in fact prospered over the past quarter of a century.
Both examples are appalling scientific procedure and would be laughed out of any attempt to be published in a respectable journal. Therein lies the problem, appositely highlighted.
As the scientist explains, the wilful manipulation of data to push an agenda is completely unacceptable and that is why there are question marks when supposed independent experts publish their results and why we should query their reports, as much as we don't take some politicians at face value when they open their traps.
Are Cook's Uni on your list of 95% trust worthy sources?