Today Heartiste retweeted this:
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status...4936861697
It's a satellite image of arctic sea-ice showing similar ice-coverage on 5/25/95 and 5/25/15, with the comment "Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago"
Well, I am generally liberal but open-minded, so I played around with the website, which allows you to pick any two dates and compare arctic sea ice coverage between them. Try, for instance,
9/25/95 v. 9/25/14
7/25/95 v. 7/25/14
6/25/94 v. 6/25/14
11/25/94 v. 11/25/13
I spent a limited amount of time trying different dates on the site, but it was easy to find dates with significant to major differences in sea-ice coverage (the above is basically a random sample--I omitted one set of dates that showed no change but did not otherwise cherry-pick for large differences).
Come on people. We're men, we're the Red Pill. We are supposed to face the truth, even when it doesn't agree with our prejudices or what we wished were true. We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science. I know the general orthodoxy these days is liberal and feminist and there's a lot of bullshit there, but that doesn't make it all bullshit. To pick one pair of dates on which sea ice was the same and use it as evidence against global warming? To forget that maybe 95 was a particularly cold year amid a warming trend, or maybe sea ice differences just don't show up in May? That's weak, man.
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status...4936861697
It's a satellite image of arctic sea-ice showing similar ice-coverage on 5/25/95 and 5/25/15, with the comment "Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago"
Well, I am generally liberal but open-minded, so I played around with the website, which allows you to pick any two dates and compare arctic sea ice coverage between them. Try, for instance,
9/25/95 v. 9/25/14
7/25/95 v. 7/25/14
6/25/94 v. 6/25/14
11/25/94 v. 11/25/13
I spent a limited amount of time trying different dates on the site, but it was easy to find dates with significant to major differences in sea-ice coverage (the above is basically a random sample--I omitted one set of dates that showed no change but did not otherwise cherry-pick for large differences).
Come on people. We're men, we're the Red Pill. We are supposed to face the truth, even when it doesn't agree with our prejudices or what we wished were true. We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science. I know the general orthodoxy these days is liberal and feminist and there's a lot of bullshit there, but that doesn't make it all bullshit. To pick one pair of dates on which sea ice was the same and use it as evidence against global warming? To forget that maybe 95 was a particularly cold year amid a warming trend, or maybe sea ice differences just don't show up in May? That's weak, man.