another example.

this article - apparently written by a science correspondent - has the temerity to link to a document that was not peer reviewed or even published in a journal, but sent to nature as a letter. this is worse than incompetent, but sneaky, as it brings in the authority of nature as a journal, while undermining it at the same time, as the article was not actually published by nature at all, and in fact was presumably rejected by it if it showed up in the letters section.

think of it like an op-ed.

and, the "journalist" then has the stupidity to claim that this widely rejected hypothesis is a "fact". wrong.

but, why does she sink to such an absurd low? because she's pushing an agenda, and can't find a decent source. if she could find a better source, she would have published it. one doesn't exist.

why is the cbc giving the denialist right this kind of fuel? they yell that this is a giant hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary - then the media gives them the evidence that they need to make a credible argument. it's madness.

grown-ups are able to understand that the world is complicated. we don't need to be force-fed lies in order to avoid being distracted. the actual fact is that we're undergoing a decline in tsi, and this decline is weakening the force that bottles up the polar winds, leading to extreme outbursts of cold in the northern hemisphere. and, so long as the sun's output remains weak, we should in fact expect this to continue - whether we reduce our carbon emissions or not.

the theory that this article - and so many others - are citing argues that melting polar ice is elevating energy from sea level into the troposphere. this is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. worse, the author does not provide a mechanism, she cites some statistics and then waves her hands - it's magic. then, she wonders why nobody takes her seriously, except liberal journalists trying to argue that it's cold because of global warming, because they don't want to confuse people that have a grade ten science education as a part of their masters in comparative literature.

the correct theory talks about energy levels moving downwards into the atmosphere, in obeyance with the laws of thermodynamics. as the polar vortex happens in the atmosphere, the correct theory talks about things that affect the atmosphere - and melting sea ice is not one of them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820