> where a marine biologist with a PhD was fired for publishing a paper which claimed that coral bleaching had improved.

That's the Sky News framing of his dismissal.

He was dismissed for misconduct towards other peer researchers, he beat that up on Sky News, initially won an unfair dismissal case and then lost on appeal.

He did claim that coral recovery after a mass bleaching had come back better than ever, the reality was that recovery was good but at the tally up things were still worse than before.

For reference:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-environment-oceans...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/qld-controversial-que...

> You never hear about such cases on mainstream news.

Yes, you do.

It was all over Sky News, ABC Australian news, Reuters, The Guardian, BBC News, etc.

> I was thinking the same thing. I started thinking the article was satire towards the end. I was expecting that it would be about climate scientists being gagged for not being alarmist enough or for presenting some evidence that went against the climate change narrative.

This comment is a good example of being primed to accept a particular narrative, assuming that the OP would confirm that bias, and then on discovering that it does not confirm that bias, reacting to reject the offending data point as a "psyop". A neat encapsulation of the challenge we have in communicating honestly with each other.

I think of myself as agnostic on climate change.... Maybe it's happening, maybe it's primarily man-made. Still, I just can't imagine in the current environment where the media blames literally everything on climate change that scientists would be reprimanded by politicians (who are themselves clearly in favor of climate alarmism) for being too alarmist. That does not add up for me.