I don't believe that the data here is being misrepresented. But the conclusions are not valid.
The gist of the article is:
1. Arctic ice thickness and extent are cyclical and uncorrelated with atmospheric CO2 levels.
2. NOAA sea ice graphs start at a cyclical peak (1979), which incorrectly leads people to believe that Arctic sea ice thickness and extent are on a consistent downward trend, rather than the low end of a multi-decade cycle.
3. Therefore, global warming does not exist (????)
I'm not exaggerating the third point:
Eastern Arctic temperatures closely track the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2.
This wrecks global warming theory which is climate scientists’ bread and butter, so NASA simply erases the prior warmth
NOAA and NASA should rightly be taken to task for misrepresenting Arctic ice data.
However to dismiss the entire global warming premise on this basis is a maliciously illogical conclusion.
Spent some more time poking around through this website, and the best conclusion I could draw was: scientists like to make bold predictions on tenuous grounds, and the media likes to make hysterical reports based on those predictions. Therefore we shouldn't believe in global warming because there is a lot of both bold over-prediction and hysterical over-reporting associated with it.
Meanwhile the blog does plenty of disingenuous over-reporting of its own, flagging several historical weather events as evidence that the climate is not changing and that it is not warming.
Edit -
Here's a great example: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/04/global-warming-and-th... it sets up a strawman argument, "climate experts tell us global warming brings in early spring". The author then looks outside his window, sees snow, and concludes that there is no early spring.
Therefore climate change is a hoax, right? We are all being lied to? It's so obvious! Except for the fact that spring did indeed come early on the East Coast: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/08/climate/early... as for the connection to climate change, that was over-reporting. The connection was posed by one research team, who used a computer model to show that greenhouse gas emissions could (in their model) lead to earlier onset of spring.
It's interesting to see how the USGS talks about climate change. In their terms, early onset of spring indicates climate change because the climate is literally changing: spring comes earlier than it used to in the south and east. At no point do they make a connection between average global temperatures or greenhouse gas emissions.
Edit 3 -
Interestingly, the data in that blog post does suggest that there is no need to "save" the Arctic ice, at least not yet.
Monsoon rain in indian Subcontinent has also started happening later and more rain happens in shorter time period which is resulting in flooding and crop damage. I am in agriculture trade and major crop arrivals to the market usually were same time period for decades but seem to be changing in the last few years.
