Hacker News Reader

Comment by baruchthescribe | Hacker News Reader

You would have go back and look at the whole century to see that it's just part of the normal cycle.

You are making the claim so you need to show the evidence (especially since it contradicts accepted scientific consensus). Don't be lazy and force other people to do your work for you as you won't have a chance in hell of convincing anyone that way.

What you've linked so far shows that the sea ice level of the past 5 years is well below even 2 standard deviations under the average, which contradicts your claim. Not sure what you were trying to prove by posting that link.

I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU

>I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true.

No one is saying science is infallible. It's just the best explanation for what we're seeing so far, based on empirical evidence. Your argument that science was wrong about something in the past does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims - for that you need to post evidence.

>If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't.

Your own link you posted contradicts this. I'm starting to think that you don't understand the contents of your own link, because it very clearly contradicts what you are trying to say.

>Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU

This is a typical tactic used by climate change deniers. Ask for evidence - when they can't provide any, they distract and post something completely different and try to deflect.

I'll spend 10 minutes of my time watching that video after you spend a little effort and post a scientific paper that supports your original claim.

Here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projectin...

Arctic sea ice is normal and cyclical and follows both short and long term cycles.

"sea ice extent" shows up 3 times in that 400 page paper, and those phrases where it's mentioned don't support anything related to your initial claim.

You are wrong, and trolling: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arct...

Not trolling. I genuinely believe that the evidence shows that a) carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming and b) the world's climate is just fine. Your linked piece starts with the misleading graph from NOAA which conveniently starts at the peak of 1979, omitting all of the data we have since the 1920s showing Arctic sea ice is cyclical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8

the second graph shown in that denialist video says nothing about arctic sea ice in the way the NOAA data do, which go back only to 1979. They are data about ice anomalies, not ice coverage. Also, I can't find a source for that second, allegedly IPCC graph, so it may be as fraudulent as the video's argument.

NOAA data goes back to the early 1970s. The IPCC paper can be found after a fairly trivial Google search here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc....

Good. So let's summarize:

- someone who disagrees with you can be called names

- you're ignorant of the history of NOAA

- if you can't find something, then the other person is a fraud

- but you claim they make fraudulent arguments anyway so that's OK

Very scientific.

You are still cherrypicking by concentrating on these data, which are not conclusive. /so, you show me part of an in-depth paper saying that there were data before 1979 .It appears there might. However, in the paper, it says there was not much variance in sea ice significantly between the 1953 and 1984, but that 1960-80 was significantly colder anomaly period. (pp 224-5). But after that... much decline. None of what you talk about it particularly relevant, given ALL the other data about melting glaciers and sea ice extents since 1990, which you carefully ignore.

Look here, for example https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm

If you're living in the US, you could of course just look outside and notice that you've just had the coldest October-April period on record. But yeah, the Arctic is clearly melting.

Anyone reading HN should understand about variance in data sets. Given you're stooping to the level of 'It's cold at the moment, at this one data point', I cannot take your conversation seriously. You can do better, and you know it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com