The part about divers crying into masks hit home. It was on my bucket list to dive in the Great Barrier Reef but it’s now been declared dead. 95% of my diving has been in the last 25% of my diving career because I know I have a limited time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49520949?SThisFB
Since the BBC is now officially a climate alarmist organization, I think one can be sure that this report is as alarmist as one can be without blatantly disregarding easily verifiable facts.
What exactly does that mean?
(The BBC report is summarizing a report from the Australian government, and unless it's just lying its level of alarmism will pretty much track those of that report itself. So whether the BBC is "officially a climate alarmist organization", whatever that means, matters less than whether the Australian government is one. Regardless, it would be nice to know what you mean.)
Even when reporting on a report, it's possible to emphasize certain aspects, or misleadingly paraphrase its conclusions. I haven't looked at the original report to tell whether that has happened here.
Regarding the consensus, they say "The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position". Here, you have to read between the lines. Do you think that this means they will "de-platform" people who are more alarmist than the IPCC? I doubt it. In that respect, it's always, "the latest research, too recent for the last IPCC report, shows that it's worse than we thought...".
The BBC is not proposing to "de-platform" everyone less alarmist than the IPCC so no, I wouldn't expect them to de-platform everyone more alarmist than the IPCC either. Here are some things they do say:
> As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage
and
> There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.
all of which seems to allow for a considerable degree of variation away from the IPCC's position before anything like "de-platforming" is on the table.
(I'd still like to know what exactly "officially a climate alarmist organization" means. By "climate alarmist", do you mean the same as "believing that climate change is real", or something else?)