Is Arctic ice rebounding? -- How I got CDN to finally issue a correction!

Thank you for your service.

Well I'm not sure how to take this video. On the one hand you posted lots of convincing evidence and Robson got clowned on. On the other hand he did call you "dim" and insulted you, so by the rules of the playground I think that you've lost.

Legendary. I hope to demonstrate integrity of this level in my everyday life.

Potholer54 is the GOAT.

I would like to see him do an instructional/tutorial video where he shows how he makes these videos. If he showed all of the steps from finding.the target he debunks, to doing the research, and then producing the video, then it would lead to many others using his method and debunking more of the trash out there. Additionally, the video would always be out there recruiting and educating more and more rational people. Idk, it's just a thought.

I enjoy listening to CDN.

Yeah, I catch errors. I notice really old references that are pushed like new research.

Still recognize AGW doesn't just depend on GHG theory. It also asserts no other significant forcing is acting on the climate.

It depends on amplification of CO2 warming. Usually water.

And that the atmosphere warms the ocean while being utterly dwarfted by the oceans mass and solar energy stores. 1000 to 1 energy wise.

So he can be wrong 60% of the time, and still refutes effectively AGW.

oh my god it's the climate shitwit ben shapiro.

This is “flat earth” level of stupid. Im a Geographer with a master in glacial geomorphology (not that ive ever used it for anything professionally) and if i had a cent for every time ive been lectured by ppl that global warming was a scam i would be able to afford a coffee. Latest was when visiting a customer and during lunch someone was claiming that global warming was a total scam, quoting some article. I pointed out that i believed some of his statements were wrong, and when things got a little heated, he put it on a point that he trusted journalist xxx more than me. He didnt know i actual had a relevant degreee, which i ofc immidiatly rubbed in his face, petty as i am …
That being said, when i studied in the 00s, we allready had models that could describe the patterns we were seeing, but while we knew the value of many of the variables, we didnt quite undestand what it exactly represented. Something which was openly acknowledged back then. These are much much better undestood today, but ppl are completely ignoring the past 20 years and keep insisting that we have no clue how the models work.

Ironically, the so-called "greenhouse effect" GHE in Earth's troposphere is considerably weaker in the polar regions than at lower latitudes simply due to the simple physics of how it works. In fact, it's backwards in winter, causing cooling. The +ve feedbacks in the Arctic are larger though so it overwhelms the low value of GHE there and causes the funny little irony. Antarctic not yet though. Physical science snippet I throw in sometimes in case somebody is interested in physical science rather than human things (the Babble Science). If anybody is interested (fat chance) in that GHE and the interesting aspect, not just pissing me around to waste my time like all the others, then let me know and I'll explain it. Simples.

I see CDN has banned PH54 and deleted some of my comments to him addressing his errors in his video and responses to PH54! So much for "discussion" on that channel. Some commenters on that pinned thread are asking him why, to which his response is that it was because PH54 can't read a chart. So, it has nothing to do with PH54 being rude or profane, but totally due to the fact that CDN has no intention of discussing anything on their channel unless it's echoing their anti-science rhetoric!

I have no intention of letting them get away with it! Hope to see a flood of PH54 subscribers visiting those videos soon! 🤟

Date #1 Highest ice in 20 years. Date #2 "only" the Highest ice in 10 years.

Robinson isn't smart enough to know that he is not very smart.

@potholer54 I didn't get a prequel this time. I guess your fixes worked.

There are times when you come across comments so mendacious that you can't believe what you've just read. Please, enjoy this example:

@tarstarkusz 5 hours ago said: "The plastic in the ocean is NOT coming from any Occidental countries. NONE OF IT."

Here's the problem with dealing with the anti-science crowd: how do you respond to something so stupid? Do you waste your time digging up official sources to refute the latest climate denier brain-fart? I mean I did (UNEP: Our planet is choking on plastic), but how often do we spend time tracking down every lie? By the time we've gotten around to refuting bullsh*t like this the liar in question has probably vomited up 10 more lies elsewhere.

It's a shame, and I really don't have an answer for how you deal with someone like this.

NB: don't bother addressing his use of the term Occidental; he's probably old enough that it was still in widespread use when he was a student

Commenting to appease the algorithm. I also started donating to that charity. You do good work.

Cheers.

It's interesting reading the (one sided) discussion from CDN where Potholer's been removed and there is a lot of knickers getting into a bunch. It's rather fun.

Robson deletes any comments on his channel that link to your video, or which even just mention potholer54 by name. Lack of intellectual integrity.

Oh silly potholer54, you clearly don't understand that the ice levels are a stock market. When ice levels go up, buy. When ice levels go down, sell. Ice line go up.

Robson is a "historian and a journalist." I notice climatologist or glaciologist is not his profession. Why is he trying to speak with authority in a field he has no expertise in?

Sadly 160.000 people upvoted the Robson garbage.

I took a brief look at John Robson's online pronouncements: utter denialist propaganda, not worth anybody's time.

"rebounding downwards" 😂

Yet again Potholer reminds us all what good journalism is all about. 👍

As always, a great video. Thank you.

The clue is right there on the graph. Why would there be so many lines overlapping, all with different colors, with a color-coded index of years right next to it, if it was supposed to be a single line showing the amount of ice over many, many years. Answer: it wouldn't. The months are at the bottom, the years are on the side, it's RIGHT THERE for all to see, including me, and I'm half blind on the right side and didn't have any trouble spotting the years.
But for the climate change deniers out there, I'm gonna do you a favor and explain to you how you already know man-made climate change is real. Without math, without graphs.

That's a bold claim, right? You're climate change deniers, and yet here I am saying you already know it's real. So here's the proof you're going to ignore no matter what: go to your kitchen, and touch the sink. You feel how the metal is cool to the touch? There's the proof of climate change. But you don't understand why it's proof yet, so I'll keep it simple for you as I explain.

Every substance has different thermal capacity and thermal conductivity. That's why some things feel warmer to the touch than others and why things melt at different temperatures. Your sink is made of some kind of metal. Metal used to make appliances tends to be good at absorbing large quantities of heat, like a battery or sponge for heat. When you touch it, the heat in your hand seeps into the metal, so it feels cool. Different substances are better or worse at doing this, but something that is always true is that more stuff can absorb more heat. Try boiling one cup of water, time it, and then try boiling four cups of water and see if it takes the same amount of time.

I know you didn't bother doing that experiment and you'd just ignore the fact that four cups of water takes MUCH longer to boil, but us real grown-ups know it does. Now take the atmosphere. People dig up billions of tons of carbon from underground, and then burn it. All that extra carbon gets combined with O2 already in the atmosphere.

So think real hard with this one: Which do you think absorbs more heat? O2, Or CO2? Hint: CO2 has more stuff than just O2. I've already given you the answer twice now.

There you go, denier lunatics. Proof that you already know climate change is real, just from touching your kitchen sink with your bare hands.

I look forward to being bored by the vapid tripe you desperately try to invent to explain this away without actually learning anything and then ignoring you as the garbage you are.

Now show ice extent over the last 10k years, the holocene.

The basic difference here is between someone who wants to mislead to push and agenda and someone, potholer54, who's interested in the truth.

I'm a Pothead, the good version. Like a boss as usual Potholer.

It's good to hear from you even if it's just a sideline.

In Canada, we have to put up with this guy's propaganda frequently. National Post is everything from climate change denialism to running interference for politicians who forcefully take rights away from marginalized groups.

I always wondered when @CDN would show up on this channel, glad to see it fimally did, its an absolute treasure trove of misinformation, cherry picking and gross over-simplifications. @potholer54 could fill this channel reviewing him alone.

Guess being a historian isn’t paying the bills so Robson needs a side hustle being a climate change denier?

Robson has to be related to Ben Shapiro.

I always enjoy that your videos are to the point, very little fluff before we get to the substance.

[Begiin opinion] This is a general comment aimed at a specific subset of climate "skeptics": people who 'feel' that ph54 is too mean when climate "skeptics" get things wrong, and not mean 'enough' when people who accept the science get things wrong.

If I've just described you then I would recommend checking out the climate change playlist on this channel. There's loads of criticism for people who in general accept the findings of researchers, and yet still misinterpret or misrepresent those findings.

The poster boy for criticism on the channel is Al Gore. Every climate change video has extensive criticisms of Al Gore for things he said, and for things he didn't. If the video isn't about Al Gore there will be several comment thread underneath the video to take up the slack. The Al Gore smackdowns are legendary. ph54 is scrupulously polite (almost to a fault) and yet the only public figure he's even come close to calling a liar, as far as I can recall, is Al Gore; "Al Gore wasn't exactly lying...but..." Not even Donald Trump, who I suspect ph54 has no time for, receives anywhere near the same level of criticism for his various pronouncements.

Cards on the table I didn't really know who Al Gore was before this channel, and in the intervening years I've come to have a level of respect for what he's tried to do. Most of the people here whose opinions I respect despise Al Gore for various reasons. Yet even though I have a level of respect for the man I can't pretend he didn't get things wrong. That isn't how the world works.

Likewise, I would suggest to those of you who feel ph54 is too mean: focus on whether or not the critiques are valid, not how the critiques make you feel. If you are a "skeptic" you should actually be lining up to thank ph54; by pointing out there errors he's helping you to refine your arguments, isn't he?

If you made it this far, congratulations. I hope you consider this perspective, if you hadn't before, and thank you for coming to my TED Talk [/end opinion].

Anyone who responds like Robson did is not a genuine scientist or historian, they are mere;y an egoist. It infuriates me that videos like his that are clearly factually incorrect are out there miseducating thousands of people.

👍‍‍🌟👍‍‍

Nice one potholer54.

Thankyou for this video. I have been the unfortunate viewer of a couple of Dr Robsons previous videos and I only made it about two thirds through the one you are critiquing before I gave up in frustration. Robson, sorry Dr Robson is a habitual ‘cherry picker’ of climate scientists work and an even worse ‘straw man’ builder. Potholder isn’t the only UTube r who has done some review of his work and his response is about the same to them. It seems the more incorrect he is shown to be, the more rude and aggressive he becomes so take it as a compliment if he calls you dim. Robson reminds me a lot of the Tony Heller (depending what name he was using that week) videos which used to do much the same thing. Robson loves to make it a ‘expert versus common sense’ scenario then immediately uses quotes from apparently wise historians who were of course experts at the time. If this type of video wasn’t so common I wouldn’t mind so much but it dumbs down so much good work from real hard working scientists as well as appealing to the biases of those who just do t want to believe their comfortable lifestyle is coming to an end if we continue our current model of constant production increase and economic expansion.

Jan 6 eh? Interesting.

CDN is lying with data. He's intellectually dishonest, showing a graph that hides the statistical trend and then cherry-picking some single point to support his narrative. And it looks very deliberate (since he stays with his graph and just changed the data point people should look at – that's a magicians trick).

Almost all the comments against him in that thread on his video are hidden or deleted, it's funny because he looks like he's arguing with himself

Did Robson mean, "You are rude AND dim"? Grammar are not his best skill.

I would still like to interview you regarding your favorite charity.

The call themselves skeptics 'cause when the time to use their brain came, they knew that they have to star making up sh*t.

My dad once told me that the difference between a smart person and a dumb person is the smart person is willing to keep an open mind.

Because of you, I contribute to Health in Harmony each year.

You model good scientific practice in regard to handling mistakes, that alone is a precious contribution.

Telling someone that they're rude, dim, and cannot read a graph; after they've politely corrected your own interpretation of graphic data ... seems like a bit of an own goal.