/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8632629
>>>8632515
>>>8632517
>>MUH RED HERRING
>Do you not realize that you are guilty of the exact same fallacy? You prance around the point of sea ice decline by claiming it's data manipulation,
ANOTHER STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Never said it wasn't declining. Said you're being statistically deceptive.

>Read the Meier et. al paper from 2012 that quantified sea ice extent from 1950s to 2012:
>http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html
>READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, FOR THE LAST TIME.
How authoritarian. People who will lose their job if they say otherwise, say climate change is true.
LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA. And without statistical gamesmanship.

You want to read papers?
READ THE HISTORICAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND SEE HOW MUCH HISTORY HAS BEEN ALTERED

Why doesn't the modern literature agree with the past? Because they rewrote it!!
Look at Vinnikov, K. Ya, et al. "Current climatic changes in the Northern Hemisphere." Meteorologiya i gidrologiya 6 (1980): 5-17.
Your posted graph chooses September, the deepest melt time and far and away the most variable. How about an annual graph like Vinnikov? Pic related. Cherry pick much?
Again, READ THE HISTORICAL SCIENTIFIC LITARATURE. Because it's not goal-seeked with a pre-determined conclusion. You're in for a big surprise.