Need help debunking a skeptic article

[AleksS]

4. This article should help

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, the fact that the total oceanic surface area covered by ice was greater this year than last (as of August) is being parroted by the same group that always shouts: "See global warming is a hoax!" every time it snows outside. And for similar reasons. Their failure to consider long-term trends over short term phenomena is one reason why these folks will be denying global warming even as their homes are being submerged by rising sea levels.

This article gives some good information and reflection on the data your writer is referencing and also includes some pretty great animations that very very very clearly demonstrate your writer's massive (dare I say 'epic?') failure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

The article includes solid refutations of both the "global cooling" nonsense and the ice coverage arguments your writer puts forth. (Notably the authors of the UW research that brought up the idea of global cooling expressly stated that they were speaking in the immediate short term and their research has "very little" to do with global warming on a long term scale, which they note is continuing.)

In any event while of course your RW friend will never read it, it should provide you the evidence you need to rest assured that what he wrote is in fact bull-puckey, and not worth the bandwidth it took to send.

Just as a for example, these are a couple images from the article I linked that I find interesting. (The article includes captions with sources, etc.) There are other similar images that graphically demonstrate the disconnect between a scientist's view of AGW vs. that of a "skeptic."
[img][/img]
[img][/img]