' I'm more inclined to believe scientists rather than journalists writing from the US, fake news comes to mind.'

ant

I am more inclined to believe people who have been diving at the GBR for decades than fake news by fake scientist who either hold to a blind faith or are on the tax funded gravy train. The reef was dead 30 years ago according to previous scientist.

Any support of the climate fraud stems from ignorance or dishonesty.
Reflux has shown that in his case it arises from his inherent dishonesty.
Robert Carter was a leading climate scientist up to his death, and he completely demolished the climate fraud advanced by the front organization of the United Nations, the IPCC, in its scurrilous attempt to demonise CO2, and human emissions.
As Carter commented:” the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change
Fraud supporters like Reflux, had no science to counter Carter’s flawless presentation, so attacked him personally with blatant lies.

This is a copy of my post, after Reflux disappeared, because he had cornered himself with his dishonesty, and would not answer my straightforward question.
Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handling a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 6:02:47 PM

Leo

"Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and a world renowned authority on climate change, ...."

And ... "Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change."

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016

Suggesting ... "renowned" and "leading" are appeals to authority from an odious Agency.
Heartlands was arguing that smoking was safe long after the science had shown that not to be the case. They are as reliable with their views on climate change. Appeals to authority are logically fallacious arguments.

Science keeps moving on with new data being found and assessed.

The IPCC draws together science that has been published in reputable peer reviewed journals, and then formulated into a Report. IPCC participants hold all sorts of political views, some being quite conservative others more radical. Reports were put together through a process of consensus; so, a conservative (not political) Reports emanates from such a process. Richard Lindzen has been a participant with the IPCC, he being skepitical of climate science. Lindzen has in the past been a scientist deniers referenced in the past, for example.

We have crossed swords in the past in relation to an article you referenced to the Arctic. Last year for a few days sea extent rose very quickly; the reference you gave stated that scientists were wrong and the Arctic sea ice extent was recovering; but, the increase slowed right down and went in the opposite direction. Currently, sea ice extent sits at about second or third lowest recorded, as I stated at the time there can be changes up and down on a daily basis by thousands of square kilometres.

Yet, you say any body who supports climate change support fraud. The reference you provided was completely wrong, it was later also published by WUWT. It could be construed as telling lies, I prefer to suggest that the article emanated from ignorance, as I know nothing about the author's motivations.

continued

continued:

The point being, Bob Carter wrote to the Quadrant in 2009, much has happened since. Tens of thousands of science research articles would have been published since in peer reviewed journals. (Powell et al). Articles provided by deniers are often factually wrong or have been cherry picked, as indicated by the nonsensical article published on the Watt's site about sea ice extent in 2016. Yet, climate scientists are fraudsters, I showed last year how you were wrong, what does that make you?

Bob Carter, would not have known about the methane pingo explosions or the decline in permafrost in Siberia, Northern Canada and Alaska when writing his article. They are factors showing climate change experienced over a huge geographical area.

Dear Leo Lane,

Forgive me because I had indeed forgotten how slowly and clearly you required things to be spelled out to you.

When I said;

“I'm happy for you to lay out the grounds of your complaint and I will attend to them forthwith.” I was hoping you had a fresh argument but here you are yet again touting Carter as a climate scientist.

This is something the even the Heartland Institute refuses to claim of him, nor does his Wikipedia page, nor (at least from a cursory look) did he himself.

Once again you are propagating a lie, a fraud, and it is more dishonesty from a discredited person. Time to give it a rest mate.

Reflux says:” something the even the Heartland Institute refuses to claim of him,”
When did they refuse, Reflux, and who requested them?
When you ignore the question, Reflux, it will not be merely another instance of your refusal to act like a decent reasonable human being, but an indication that you have lied yet again about the leading climate scientist, Robert Carter.

cont