John Daysh and WTFNot again.
I would be interested to know who I should believe in this continuing debate with Mikko2 but I do not know your experience so until then I have to depend on my knowledge.
I reckon you two and anyone else who has so much time on their hands really needs to read someone who has more knowledge than most and you may learn a little about Coral, Reefs and anything to do with "heaven + earth" by Professor Ian Plimer (of yes – I can hear you already – you will no doubt poo hoo this great scientist). That book is a great educational tool.
I have been having brief visits to this On Line Opinion article but have been too pre-occupied to interact as I like to be sure of my facts before I get into debates.
This is the thing though – you must read this link from 1874 – about the first CLIMATE SCAM. Read it carefully especially the first few lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Hoax_of_1874#:~:text=The%20%22Global%20Warming%20Hoax%20of,of%20all%20life%20on%20Earth.
Then when that had all gone “cold” along comes Margaret Mead with her “Endangered Atmosphere Conference” in America 100 years later in 1974. She gathers whoever at the time and they all DECIDE to push the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX. N.B. She makes sure that they all AGREE TO MAKE THIS SOUND REALLY WORRYING.
Hence teachers with an agenda have been scaring the living daylights out of our students ever since. This second link needs time to read so if you come straight back at me, I’ll know you haven’t even bothered.
Cheers.
https://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

A few things about the sources you’ve cited, Farnortherner:

The “1874 climate scam.”
That wasn’t science, it was satire. The Iowa State Register ran a spoof about a telegraph cable pulling Earth into the Sun. As RMIT’s FactLab notes: “The Global Warming Hoax of 1874 was a newspaper hoax…not a scientific prediction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Hoax_of_1874

Margaret Mead’s 1975 meeting.
The conference was The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, held in October 1975 at a U.S. federal institute, with proceedings published in 1977. That’s routine science - peer discussions and printed proceedings - not a “plot.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atmosphere:_Endangered_and_Endangering

The PDF you linked comes from 21st Century Science & Technology - a LaRouche movement magazine. LaRouche publications are notorious for conspiracy narratives, not peer-reviewed science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Science_and_Technology

Ian Plimer.
Plimer’s Heaven + Earth was reviewed by climate scientists and found riddled with errors. Prof. Ian Enting wrote: “a collection of contrarian misrepresentations that does not meet the standards of an academic text.”
http://sks.to/plimer

Just a fraction of what climate science actually rests on:

- 1859: John Tyndall demonstrated CO2 and water vapour trap heat in the lab.
- 1896: Svante Arrhenius calculated how rising CO2 would warm the planet.
- 20th-21st century: Satellites and ocean data confirmed the trend.

This isn’t something “invented” in the 1970s, it’s a physical principle measured for over 150 years.

So, the 1874 hoax was a newspaper parody, the 1975 Mead conference was a published scientific meeting, 21st Century Science & Technology is a conspiracy magazine, and Plimer’s book has been debunked in detail. Meanwhile, the basic physics of CO2 warming the planet is laboratory science going back to the 19th century.

And the evidence against anthropogenic climate change?

Zip.

Welcome to the climate change conga line Far Northerner but no need to read repetitive claims from the vastly knowledgeable JD who really seems to think that someone with a test tube in a lab represents "empirical proof" that CO2 drives climate change. That really is laughable and as you mention experienced geologist and successful author Prof Ian Plimer, he is just one who has challenged group-think scientists with their hands out for government funding to provide actaul empirical evidence and the truth is NO ONE has been able to. It's no wonder they try unsuccessfully to discredit him.
They also try to discredit other experienced scientists such as Joanne Nova who posted this recently exploding the myth of disappearing polar sea ice:

By Jo Nova

One third of all human emissions has had no effect on the Arctic
Since 2005, humans have emitted one third of all the emissions we’ve ever put out — some 600 billion tons of CO2. Yet the Arctic sea ice is the same as it was twenty years ago. And even though the modelers cling to the excuse that this is “consistent with simulated internal variability” there was not one model that forecast this would happen.

For twenty years arctic sea ice was the Posterchild of Panic, and on the verge of disappearing forever, while Antarctic sea ice was invisible. Now the sea ice at the South Pole is at “a climate tipping point”, and the northern sea-ice is just a surprise.

Even when sea ice does nothing, it’s dramatic:
As long as the buzzwords are there in the headlines, The Guardian readers may not even realize the scientists were completely, utterly wrong, and all the hand-wringing and tears about the polar bears was just a fundraising publicity stunt.
Remember, bad news is due to man-made climate change, but good news is a natural variation, and it’s only temporary. The Prophets of Climate say disaster is just around the corner still...
https://www.joannenova.com.au

Let’s unpack your latest deflections, Mikko2:

Ice Change Realities

Yes, studies like the recent University of Exeter paper report a temporary slowdown in Arctic sea ice loss since 2005. A “pause”, not a reversal. The September minimum decline has slowed by ~55-63%, but that's decades of decline still in place - just at a slightly lower rate. Scientists agree it's a natural fluctuation, not proof climate change isn’t real. It’s a reprieve - only temporary.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/20/slowdown-in-melting-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists

Moreover, overall ice has shrunk by ~50% since 1979, and volume continues its downward trend. Even if area temporarily stalls, the remaining ice is thinner and less stable.

http://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

For decades, climate models have consistently tracked ice loss - recent slowdowns were anticipated and are well within expected variability.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/predicted-arctic-sea-ice-trends-over-time

Jo Nova & Polar Trends

Joanne Nova dismisses Arctic changes as a media-fueled frenzy, yet:

- September sea ice extent is plummeting.
- Volume keeps declining.
- Multiple independent datasets - NASA, NOAA, NSIDC - all show steep long-term loss.

http://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-says-arctic-sea-ice-isnt-changing-but-truth-is-the-polar-opposite

To compare: while headlines briefly mentioned increased Antarctic winter ice, seasonal bounce-back is overshadowed by long-term global declines and ecosystem collapse.

So, in short:

- A short-term slowdown doesn’t cancel a persistent decline.
- Arctic summer ice is shrinking rapidly overall.
- Climate models anticipated these "pauses" - they don’t undermine warming trends.
- Citing “good news” snapshots doesn’t counter consistent, global data.

Your “conga line” of cherry-picked “myths busted” ignores the real, documented long-term decline - ice area, volume, and thickness, all diminishing.

The physics, satellite records, and model projections all align. Reality persists, whether it’s dramatic headlines or “quiet reprieves.”

John Daysh – YOU STILL didn’t answer what your profession is - why are you afraid to say? If you have said before, I cannot remember.
I don’t really care though as you are obviously someone who is rusted on in his own view so everyone else must be wrong.
I told you that 1874 link was written in fun but the less educated at that time took it seriously just as you are now.
I told you to make sure you read the first sentence as I thought you may miss that bit.
As for the 1974 one – Margaret Mead didn’t always get it right either so I wouldn’t believe any of her work either especially on Climate having followed how some of her original supporters at that conference that she organized decided against the scam too.
She has been criticized for her portrayal of Samoans in the book she wrote about the “Coming of Age in Samoa.” One critique was: Derek Freeman's critique that Mead misrepresented Samoan society as less hierarchical and restrictive than it was, with higher rates of murder and rape than she indicated, and that her findings were based on an overly romanticized and simplistic view of adolescence. Other criticisms highlight Mead's methodology as potentially flawed, including her reliance on an interpreter and lack of fluency in the Samoan language, and the discovery of discrepancies between her published statements and her field data, particularly regarding adolescent promiscuity.”
I think I will not be losing sleep over any of this though as the Great Barrier Reef is doing fine.
I sure would believe Professor Ian Plimer and Professor Peter Ridd though as they work in the field and have done for years as have others who frequent the GBR in their daily work and for whatever reasons.

John Daysh - I suggesgt you may like to read Ian Plimer's book "How to get expelled from school" A guide to climate change for pupils, parents & Punters.
He lists some questions that pupils should ask their teachers.
He does suggest though that one pupil should not ask all the questions but get friends to ask some - it would take many classes to get through them all and would be silly to ask all at once. Just one thrown in every now and again I should imagine.
It is an educational book but I feel that it insinuates (and is probably correct) that most teachers probably would not be able to answer questions over and above what they have been told to teach.