Mikko2,

This isn’t about using AI, it’s about crediting an AI as a lead author.

CSIRO, NASA, IPCC? They use AI as a tool - like using a calculator, a microscope, or a weather radar. They don’t slap “Casio FX-82” or “Nikon” or “Doppler 3000” on the author line of their papers. Because tools don’t take responsibility for data, methods, or conclusions. Humans do.

That’s the difference.

When CSIRO publishes a climate paper, the author list is climate scientists. The AI they used to crunch data is acknowledged in the methods. When Willie Soon and friends publish in a fringe outlet, they actually list “Grok 3 beta” as first author - a chatbot brand name.

That’s not science, it’s a credibility stunt. And it backfires.

If your strongest “independent science” has to put a Musk chatbot up front to sound authoritative, that tells us everything about the weakness of the case.

As for “puny human efforts”: climate doesn’t “always change” at the rate we’re now measuring. Orbital shifts happen over tens of thousands of years. Volcanoes cool, not warm. The current multi-decade, accelerating heat trend matches the radiative forcing from CO2 - measured in the lab, confirmed by satellites, replicated across the globe.

That’s the empirical evidence you keep dodging.

So no, the issue isn’t that AI is used. It’s that contrarians thought putting Grok on the author list was good optics. It isn’t. It’s the scientific equivalent of waving a prop around because you’ve run out of data.

Meanwhile another post in On Line Opinion featuring the highly qualified and very experienced scientist and scuba diver Dr Jennifer Marohasy shows just how science and the Great Barrier Reef have been politicised and manipulated for woke agendas.
The Coral Reef Fact-Check Fiasco & Noble Cause Corruption
Just one small extract:
"I have shown that aerial surveys of coral reefs claiming extensive coral bleaching could easily be proven wrong by taking images with a drone at a lower altitude and also by simply getting in the water myself on scuba with an underwater camera — by doing old fashioned field work. Rather than being praised for these efforts, I was accused of misinformation by the RMIT ABC Fact Check Unit back in 2022, a unit affiliated with the international association of fact checkers that the new committee maybe looking to reinstate..."

It seems there is even an element of political blackmail with the GBR and the fabled quest for "net zero".

So now we’re onto Jennifer Marohasy, Mikko2? Sheesh, this is getting worse and worse!

Her claim that aerial surveys can be “proven wrong” by a handful of drone shots or scuba photos is not the knockout you think it is.

AIMS and GBRMPA don’t just fly over reefs and tick boxes. They combine aerial surveys with manta-tows, fixed-site in-water surveys, and long-term monitoring across hundreds of reefs, depths, and coral types. That’s how you build a reliable picture of a 2,300 km system. A diver’s photos from one site can be striking, but they’re not a substitute for systematic coverage.

And the irony?

Drones and in-water surveys are already being used in proper science, and they confirm the bleaching. A 2025 drone study at Lizard Island documented over 90% coral mortality after a mass bleaching event. The technology strengthens the aerial results, it doesn’t undermine them.

As for the “politicisation” angle, what’s actually political here isn’t AIMS’ methodology (which is public and transparent), but contrarians dressing up selective anecdotes as if they overturn system-wide data.

That’s not science, it’s spin.

So sure, Marohasy’s photos show that parts of the reef can look healthy up close, but system-wide surveys show repeated, accelerating bleaching events, and that’s the reality you keep deflecting from.

Mikko, I saw that article by J Marohasy, and submitted a comment via Substack blog. Here it is, as it may be of interest—the article is
“Very clear about the misinformation that often is spread around about the Reef. Reefs can have a long history but they don’t exist forever. For instance, when the Sea Level was about 100m lower about 30,000 years ago, it was much colder in an Ice Age. As the Ice Age departed, the Sea Level rose, with higher temperatures, corals formed and migrated upwards, close to the new shoreline. This has gone on for ages. What we see today is like a snapshot not a video over time. There is no guaranteed stability for a coral reef but inevitable change over time. Of course, there may be some questions about the influence of humans but as this article shows, interpretations often vary. I like the interpretation put forward in this article.”

Lytton,

Again, those changes happened gradually and over thousands of years. Not every 4-6 years like we're now seeing, which is orders of magnitude faster than the natural pace. Corals can adapt to slow shifts in sea level or temperature, but struggle when stressed repeatedly in just decades.

Your “snapshot not a video” line cuts both ways.

Yes, today’s Reef is one moment in a long history - but the “snapshot” we’re capturing right now shows record-breaking heat stress, back-to-back bleaching, and rising ocean heat content. That isn’t just “inevitable change.” It’s change at a speed and scale that undermines the reef’s ability to recover.

As for interpretation, there’s room for debate about severity and resilience. But the core measurements - water temperature thresholds, bleaching frequency, ocean heat uptake - are not interpretations, they’re empirical. That’s why AIMS, GBRMPA, CSIRO and international reef scientists all warn that the system is under unprecedented pressure.

So yes, reefs have always changed. But the pace matters. A reef that can rebuild over centuries is not the same as one hammered every few years by marine heatwaves. This is what Marohasy’s anecdotes gloss over, and it’s why the peer-reviewed science looks at long-term trends as well.

Waving away today’s bleaching as just another turn of the wheel ignores the difference between a reef that changes over millennia and one being hammered in real time.

The end is nigh! Oh dear…THE END.