It’s surprising how much this headline affects me. Who doesn’t like penguins? And seals are nice, but penguins are so likeable. We’ve really ruined everything.
I get a bit of this looming feeling every time there is discussion about the Awk programming language, because it reminds me we already got the closest thing to a penguin in the nothern hemisphere extinct by the XIX century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk
Hope this time around we do a better job of avoiding complete doom for these species.
> While you abide on this island you are in the constant practice of horrid cruelties for you not only skin them Alive, but you burn them Alive also to cook their Bodies with. You take a kettle with you into which you put a Penguin or two, you kindle a fire under it, and this fire is absolutely made of the unfortunate Penguins themselves. Their bodies being oily soon produce a Flame; there is no wood on the island.
You're jumping to some big conclusions there, I believe the exact opposite in fact. The IPCC report is always overly conservative and it's gonna be much worse than anyone thinks. Those birds are already dead, as well as most of us cause there's no convincing people to stop driving diesels for two hours every day and flying halfway across the planet for a vacation. I've stopped caring. Burn all the gas you want, blow up as many missiles as you like, it won't make much difference in the end.
I bet some emus will survive though, tough bastards.
It's not as though people intentionally made these endangered because they have insufficient love for penguins. We have unintentionally done it because we have insufficient love (care) for them and many, many other things, creatures, people, etc.
It's because the people who get rich off of fossil fuels are in control, and they are willing to continue this damage as long as it adds to their personal fortunes.
We could "manhattan project" ourselves out of this mess if we wanted to. China, in a sense, is doing just that.
I love penguins, and this news has me close to tears
My local zoo has a little event during winter where the king penguins get to go for a little walk around outside their enclosure. I've been a few times this year and they are just such fun animals. It has made me want to get involved with the zoo somehow, maybe not working with the animals directly but something. I don't know.
It makes me so sad how we humans know that we are messing things up on the planet but we keep doing it anyways because the economy must grow
That's really cool! If I'm up near Calgary in the future I'm definitely checking that out. I miss the penguin march they would do here, but I understand why they stopped
It’s terrible that the side effect of humans creating a world of wealth, safety and comfort (for all?) is that we risk destroying the very comfort we create - but it is also awesome that we have sufficient wealth to allow people to study these birds full time, enough wealth to build communication systems that tell random strangers about the threat they are under and hopefully enough time to correct the problem.
I saw a speech by Carl Sagan that might be relevant - he said (sometime in 1990 judging by haircuts) that the US had spent 10 trillion dollars on defending itself from the threat of Soviet attack since 1945, but that the attack was not “certain” - not 100% sure. So if we were willing to spend trillions to prevent an uncertain catastrophe, why does the same logic not apply to climate chnage?
Many people do not see climate change as certain. Those same people have become convinced that all solutions to climate change involve their lives getting worse. Finally, for those who accept the science of climate change, the “what to do” is not obvious.
In short: not everyone agrees it is a problem. Those that do, don’t agree on the mechanics of the solution.
All large land and sea animals are now in danger, except perhaps those that are in some sense semi domesticated, deer, coyotes, raccoons, etc, but the wild ones are dying out due to human competition for resources or there very bodys.
Life on this planet will be OK. Throughout geologic time countless species have gone extinct. The Anthropocene might be tragic for the natural world but not terminal.
But: what are we trading it for? Higher living standards for more people is a noble and good but I don't think there's evidence it requires this rate of ecological destruction. Have we ever seriously tried to decouple growth from extraction?
I'm not convinced a solar punk future exists where technology will eventually close that gap in time. Maybe it will. So far it seems that every efficiency gain gets swallowed by expanded consumption. What seems most probable now is that we don't get a better world but the same dirty one plus a Starbucks on Mars.
For humans it does not really matter whether some kind of life will still continue to exist on this planet. That is a too weak consolation for unrecoverable losses.
Ignoring any ethical or esthetic arguments, every species of living beings that disappears today, regardless if it is a beetle or a whale, is a definitive loss of very important information, whose value we are not yet able to assess. It is equivalent to the burning of a library containing very valuable research papers containing results obtained after many years of work, for which there are no copies elsewhere.
Despite the huge progress of technology during the last few centuries, there are still a lot of essential things that living beings can do, but which we have not learned yet how to do. An example is the energy-efficient capture of the diluted carbon dioxide from air and a huge number of other chemical processes that would be very useful, if mastered by humans.
Every species that is lost might be the one who could save us a lot of work in the future, when we will become able to determine in much more detail how a living being works, which could provide solutions to important technical problems, some of which are actually critical for the survival of humanity, because our current technologies cannot sustain human life without help from a great number of different kinds of living beings.
For some species that have disappeared or that are disappearing we have DNA sequences. However that is not the complete information about a living being, which would allow its reconstruction.
We are still unable to read the complete information about a living cell, because there is a lot of necessary information besides that stored in nucleic acid sequences. It is likely that we will become able to read the entire information in less than a century from now, but by then it may be too late and a very large number of species will be already lost, and even the survival of the human species is not certain, due to its great median stupidity.
Even for the species where you see claims that the DNA has been sequenced, that is only very seldom true.
Especially for the eukaryotic species, where the structure of the genome is much more complex, with many chromosomes and epigenetic information, for a very small fraction of the "sequenced" genomes we have complete information, e.g. including the actual composition of the chromosomes and the locations of the genes on them, which may be important for gene regulation. For most of the existing sequenced genomes, we only have the sequences of a great number of random fragments of the genomes, from which we can make an estimation of the full genome, by examining the overlaps between the known fragments and hoping that they cover most of the genome.
There are only relatively few genomes that are known with great accuracy. Even the human genome, whose study had priority, has features that were finally discovered only decades after the first announcement claiming (falsely) that the sequencing of the human genome has been finished. Determining the sequence of the last unknown 1% of a genome can take more than the sequencing of the first 99% of the genome.
Those penguins and seals are certainly being ignored by the world at large. Thanks to trillions of dollars the renewable revolution has proceeded apace since 2010-2015 but reduction in fossil fuel use has not occurred. Quite the reverse and overall total energy demand is now greater than ever before. And from all this one concludes . . . ?
"According to the IUCN Red List criteria, a species is generally classified as Endangered (EN) if its population of mature individuals falls below 2,500"
Also IUCN, with only 180,000 individuals the Emperor penguin is now classified as Endangered.
That is objectively a wrong summary of how IUCN Red List is calculated. There’s a variety of factors including rate of decline, and any of those factors can lead to a species being in the Endangered category.
the article says 20,000 was 10% of the population
therefore the population is 180,000.
if "something might happen in the next 60 years to wipe out half the population" counts as making a species endangered, every species on the planet counts as endangered.
Please go ahead and read the criteria for how the species are tagged as endangered. Current status and population numbers can contribute to that tag, but if there are active threats that are going to rapidly affect healthy population numbers, they will still be considered endangered.
The die off is accelerating. Krill shortages (mostly due to commercial fishing) and warming temperatures will ensure it’s not going to take 60 years and that’s what the tag means.
The implicit question was whether you think we should endeavour to return to an ice or not.
Personally I'm on the not side.
And also
The only people I have seen deny climate change are the AGW idiots who think the climate has ever been stable, and who demand global action to try to put it into some sort of climatic stasis.
The rest of us have always accepted the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that:
(a) The Earth's climate has always changed and always will.
(b) The Earth's climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and cannot currently be accurately modeled in a computer.
(c) While humans, like EVERYTHING ELSE, have SOME effects on climate, there are plenty of other causes of change including many we probably do not know/understand. Some of these other sources, like the sun, have a far greater impact than humans.
(d) The Earth has been both significantly hotter and extremely cold many times in the past before there were enough humans to have had ANY effect on any of those previously very extreme changes.
We ALSO embrace things like the laws of economics, the record of human history, and accept basic human nature - so we:
(a) Believe humans will continue to advance technologically and thus we as a species become better able to deal with climate change with every passing decade, making it retrograde to go nuts trying to offset it now - even if we could, and if we could afford it, and if its happening.
(b) Know that far more people are dying today from other sources than from climate, and that reducing some of the deaths and suffering of people TODAY is achieved using some of those fossil fuels people like you want eliminated or made too expensive because YOU claim it will save some future persons from some imagined future horror.
(c) WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN before we implement policies that have a negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the name of "solving" the supposed problem. In fact, we'd like to not only see the problem PROVEN to exist, but we also want to see that the proposed solution will actually work, will be the most cost-effective option, and will have the least impact upon the lives and liberty of the people who are alive today.
Ignoring the extremely well worn points and distraction arguments you are hashing over, I’ll just address point C of your conclusions:
What proof would you accept? What are the goalposts. You have the standard counterpoints for every scientific argument, what is the point of trying to prove anything to someone who so adamantly doesn’t want to believe something? The people that actually work on this stuff are very sure that the greenhouse gas effect has been proven beyond a doubt. Thousands of studies, and billions of dollars have been spent and the huge majority of it points towards human caused climate change being real. People have been giving you the proof, and they have been giving you the solutions, but you demand more?
Fine, flip it around: why does the majority of evidence, expertise and smart money think that it is real? I need better proof of your “pet theory” that this is natural. As you say: “ WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN…”
By definition: if human climate change hasn’t been proven or disproven, then the opposite idea of natural climate change is just as unproven, but has the added problem of being the chosen theory of people who mostly aren’t domain experts, but do believe that they will be made personally worse off in the short term by mitigation efforts.
We are due to enter another ice age, quite possibly in our lifetime. It has already been warmer longer than 2 of the past three warm periods. Quite possibly because of/thanks to AGW.
The oil has run out and now 2 miles of ice above new york is coming to a store near you.
So you’d rather believe that an ice age will come in our lifetime based on pretty much no evidence, but not that a declining penguin and seal population is beyond comprehension when you have numbers?
Do you understand sea levels rise when it is warmer and fall when it is colder?
In our very recent history, sea levels were 10 meters higher than they are now, that means in our very recent history it was significantly warmer than now. back when the nile was the green cradle of humanity.
From here the only way is colder - enough ice formed in the last few thousand years to drop the sea level by 10 meters, and even if it did warm and melt enough ice to rise the sea levels back to 10m higher than now, Penguins already survived it. We will to.
going back to 2 miles of ice above your fav city puts us back in the era passing bible stories verbally (but at least we know now they will use gaza and tel aviv instead of soddom and gommah).
Oh, and btw, the decline in the Penguin population is almost certainly China overfishing, do you have any idea how huge Antarctica is?
But don't let a few facts stand in the way of you believing what you read in the local tabloid.
By no evidence, I suspect they mean that you are cherry picking very limited evidence out of a broader context to match your theory, even if the broader context of that evidence does not support your theory.
For example: the singular graph that you linked above is from a course that has an entire module on sea level rise, that actually addresses and rebuts the exact arguments that you are making: https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/node/1494.
When the materials you are citing preemptively entire sections debunking your specific arguments and use of the evidence, it is - at best - a sign that you have misinterpreted your own sources by not considering all of the available evidence. It also might mean that your misinterpretation is so common that they can see it coming, leading to the conclusion that you aren't following the evidence, but being led. There are less charitable interpretations, as well, but they aren't in the spirit of the site.
It’s surprising how much this headline affects me. Who doesn’t like penguins? And seals are nice, but penguins are so likeable. We’ve really ruined everything.
I get a bit of this looming feeling every time there is discussion about the Awk programming language, because it reminds me we already got the closest thing to a penguin in the nothern hemisphere extinct by the XIX century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk
Hope this time around we do a better job of avoiding complete doom for these species.
> While you abide on this island you are in the constant practice of horrid cruelties for you not only skin them Alive, but you burn them Alive also to cook their Bodies with. You take a kettle with you into which you put a Penguin or two, you kindle a fire under it, and this fire is absolutely made of the unfortunate Penguins themselves. Their bodies being oily soon produce a Flame; there is no wood on the island.
Oh dear god.
If a bird can't fly and isn't a super fast runner, they end up as food. Tale as old as time.
They're going extinct by habitat loss from climate change.
Don't worry. That person doesn't believe in climate change. They probably also believe that vaccines kill us. That's why I've been dead for decades.
You're jumping to some big conclusions there, I believe the exact opposite in fact. The IPCC report is always overly conservative and it's gonna be much worse than anyone thinks. Those birds are already dead, as well as most of us cause there's no convincing people to stop driving diesels for two hours every day and flying halfway across the planet for a vacation. I've stopped caring. Burn all the gas you want, blow up as many missiles as you like, it won't make much difference in the end.
I bet some emus will survive though, tough bastards.
Have you seen a penguin swim though? They are super fast in water
Also this...
"Trump Administration Seals Extinction Fate for Rice’s Whale in Offshore Drilling Decision"
https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/03/trump-admi...
This is the exact same reaction I had
Seals can be a bundle of cuteness. Leopard seals are impressive, in a different way.
This indeed a sad story.
It's not as though people intentionally made these endangered because they have insufficient love for penguins. We have unintentionally done it because we have insufficient love (care) for them and many, many other things, creatures, people, etc.
It's because the people who get rich off of fossil fuels are in control, and they are willing to continue this damage as long as it adds to their personal fortunes.
We could "manhattan project" ourselves out of this mess if we wanted to. China, in a sense, is doing just that.
I love penguins, and this news has me close to tears
My local zoo has a little event during winter where the king penguins get to go for a little walk around outside their enclosure. I've been a few times this year and they are just such fun animals. It has made me want to get involved with the zoo somehow, maybe not working with the animals directly but something. I don't know.
It makes me so sad how we humans know that we are messing things up on the planet but we keep doing it anyways because the economy must grow
Cincinnati Zoo? I saw them perform their march the other year. I think they stopped because the flock was getting too old
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2024/01/08/cincinnati-...
Calgary Zoo: https://www.calgaryzoo.com/events/penguin-walk/
It's a pretty fun little event. The penguins seem to really enjoy it, they're always checking out the crowd
That's really cool! If I'm up near Calgary in the future I'm definitely checking that out. I miss the penguin march they would do here, but I understand why they stopped
It's definitely worth the stop. The zoo here is pretty cool, even if the penguins don't go for their walk
The Penguin walk doesn't run all year, something like Nov-March. It's ended for this year unfortunately
Ice breaking up before the chicks can swim isn't even a threat to the penguin population I had considered, and now I am horrified and saddened.
While not related to penguins, [0] is the saddest thing I ever saw.
[0] https://youtu.be/qVJzQc9ELTE?si=R8K7ow2cuSuAOfex
It’s terrible that the side effect of humans creating a world of wealth, safety and comfort (for all?) is that we risk destroying the very comfort we create - but it is also awesome that we have sufficient wealth to allow people to study these birds full time, enough wealth to build communication systems that tell random strangers about the threat they are under and hopefully enough time to correct the problem.
I saw a speech by Carl Sagan that might be relevant - he said (sometime in 1990 judging by haircuts) that the US had spent 10 trillion dollars on defending itself from the threat of Soviet attack since 1945, but that the attack was not “certain” - not 100% sure. So if we were willing to spend trillions to prevent an uncertain catastrophe, why does the same logic not apply to climate chnage?
Why?
Many people do not see climate change as certain. Those same people have become convinced that all solutions to climate change involve their lives getting worse. Finally, for those who accept the science of climate change, the “what to do” is not obvious.
In short: not everyone agrees it is a problem. Those that do, don’t agree on the mechanics of the solution.
Right now, for many people, this falls into what Douglas Adams referred to as an SEP field. (SEP = Somebody Else's Problem)
If you want to be thoroughly depressed go ahead and reread Karl Sagan‘s 1996 book the Demon haunted world
Literally everything he described in there is precisely the world we live in today
All large land and sea animals are now in danger, except perhaps those that are in some sense semi domesticated, deer, coyotes, raccoons, etc, but the wild ones are dying out due to human competition for resources or there very bodys.
Life on this planet will be OK. Throughout geologic time countless species have gone extinct. The Anthropocene might be tragic for the natural world but not terminal.
But: what are we trading it for? Higher living standards for more people is a noble and good but I don't think there's evidence it requires this rate of ecological destruction. Have we ever seriously tried to decouple growth from extraction?
I'm not convinced a solar punk future exists where technology will eventually close that gap in time. Maybe it will. So far it seems that every efficiency gain gets swallowed by expanded consumption. What seems most probable now is that we don't get a better world but the same dirty one plus a Starbucks on Mars.
> The Anthropocene might be tragic for the natural world but not terminal.
I'm not so sure. I'm reminded of this quote:
“How did you go bankrupt?" “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
Plus, we are in the process of making parts of the earth unlivable for humans.
Most of the planet already is unlivable for humans.
The difference is that the parts we're making unlivable for humans already have millions of people living there already.
For humans it does not really matter whether some kind of life will still continue to exist on this planet. That is a too weak consolation for unrecoverable losses.
Ignoring any ethical or esthetic arguments, every species of living beings that disappears today, regardless if it is a beetle or a whale, is a definitive loss of very important information, whose value we are not yet able to assess. It is equivalent to the burning of a library containing very valuable research papers containing results obtained after many years of work, for which there are no copies elsewhere.
Despite the huge progress of technology during the last few centuries, there are still a lot of essential things that living beings can do, but which we have not learned yet how to do. An example is the energy-efficient capture of the diluted carbon dioxide from air and a huge number of other chemical processes that would be very useful, if mastered by humans.
Every species that is lost might be the one who could save us a lot of work in the future, when we will become able to determine in much more detail how a living being works, which could provide solutions to important technical problems, some of which are actually critical for the survival of humanity, because our current technologies cannot sustain human life without help from a great number of different kinds of living beings.
For some species that have disappeared or that are disappearing we have DNA sequences. However that is not the complete information about a living being, which would allow its reconstruction.
We are still unable to read the complete information about a living cell, because there is a lot of necessary information besides that stored in nucleic acid sequences. It is likely that we will become able to read the entire information in less than a century from now, but by then it may be too late and a very large number of species will be already lost, and even the survival of the human species is not certain, due to its great median stupidity.
Even for the species where you see claims that the DNA has been sequenced, that is only very seldom true.
Especially for the eukaryotic species, where the structure of the genome is much more complex, with many chromosomes and epigenetic information, for a very small fraction of the "sequenced" genomes we have complete information, e.g. including the actual composition of the chromosomes and the locations of the genes on them, which may be important for gene regulation. For most of the existing sequenced genomes, we only have the sequences of a great number of random fragments of the genomes, from which we can make an estimation of the full genome, by examining the overlaps between the known fragments and hoping that they cover most of the genome.
There are only relatively few genomes that are known with great accuracy. Even the human genome, whose study had priority, has features that were finally discovered only decades after the first announcement claiming (falsely) that the sequencing of the human genome has been finished. Determining the sequence of the last unknown 1% of a genome can take more than the sequencing of the first 99% of the genome.
Quick, book a cruise to take some picture of them before they're all dead! \s
Don't forget to raise awareness on Instagram (and vote for parties that lead to this).
Climate change is a hoax, those leftist penguins and marxist seals just want to hamper our great economy!
Those penguins and seals are certainly being ignored by the world at large. Thanks to trillions of dollars the renewable revolution has proceeded apace since 2010-2015 but reduction in fossil fuel use has not occurred. Quite the reverse and overall total energy demand is now greater than ever before. And from all this one concludes . . . ?
"According to the IUCN Red List criteria, a species is generally classified as Endangered (EN) if its population of mature individuals falls below 2,500"
Also IUCN, with only 180,000 individuals the Emperor penguin is now classified as Endangered.
I think someone has been out hunting headlines.
That is objectively a wrong summary of how IUCN Red List is calculated. There’s a variety of factors including rate of decline, and any of those factors can lead to a species being in the Endangered category.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteri...
No one is farming for headlines.
the article says 20,000 was 10% of the population therefore the population is 180,000.
if "something might happen in the next 60 years to wipe out half the population" counts as making a species endangered, every species on the planet counts as endangered.
Please go ahead and read the criteria for how the species are tagged as endangered. Current status and population numbers can contribute to that tag, but if there are active threats that are going to rapidly affect healthy population numbers, they will still be considered endangered.
The die off is accelerating. Krill shortages (mostly due to commercial fishing) and warming temperatures will ensure it’s not going to take 60 years and that’s what the tag means.
Meanwhile, some of us haven't forgotten
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/record-maximum-sea-ice-in...
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3613794165505253&set=gm...
Glad you still remember of random yearly increase in ice from 2014 and a photo of a random newspaper clipping from 1974 shared on Facebook.
Meanwhile long term trends in Antarctic and arctic ice cover: https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/ice-sheets#...
The implicit question was whether you think we should endeavour to return to an ice or not.
Personally I'm on the not side.
And also
The only people I have seen deny climate change are the AGW idiots who think the climate has ever been stable, and who demand global action to try to put it into some sort of climatic stasis.
The rest of us have always accepted the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that:
(a) The Earth's climate has always changed and always will.
(b) The Earth's climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and cannot currently be accurately modeled in a computer.
(c) While humans, like EVERYTHING ELSE, have SOME effects on climate, there are plenty of other causes of change including many we probably do not know/understand. Some of these other sources, like the sun, have a far greater impact than humans.
(d) The Earth has been both significantly hotter and extremely cold many times in the past before there were enough humans to have had ANY effect on any of those previously very extreme changes.
We ALSO embrace things like the laws of economics, the record of human history, and accept basic human nature - so we:
(a) Believe humans will continue to advance technologically and thus we as a species become better able to deal with climate change with every passing decade, making it retrograde to go nuts trying to offset it now - even if we could, and if we could afford it, and if its happening.
(b) Know that far more people are dying today from other sources than from climate, and that reducing some of the deaths and suffering of people TODAY is achieved using some of those fossil fuels people like you want eliminated or made too expensive because YOU claim it will save some future persons from some imagined future horror.
(c) WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN before we implement policies that have a negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the name of "solving" the supposed problem. In fact, we'd like to not only see the problem PROVEN to exist, but we also want to see that the proposed solution will actually work, will be the most cost-effective option, and will have the least impact upon the lives and liberty of the people who are alive today.
Ignoring the extremely well worn points and distraction arguments you are hashing over, I’ll just address point C of your conclusions:
What proof would you accept? What are the goalposts. You have the standard counterpoints for every scientific argument, what is the point of trying to prove anything to someone who so adamantly doesn’t want to believe something? The people that actually work on this stuff are very sure that the greenhouse gas effect has been proven beyond a doubt. Thousands of studies, and billions of dollars have been spent and the huge majority of it points towards human caused climate change being real. People have been giving you the proof, and they have been giving you the solutions, but you demand more?
Fine, flip it around: why does the majority of evidence, expertise and smart money think that it is real? I need better proof of your “pet theory” that this is natural. As you say: “ WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN…”
By definition: if human climate change hasn’t been proven or disproven, then the opposite idea of natural climate change is just as unproven, but has the added problem of being the chosen theory of people who mostly aren’t domain experts, but do believe that they will be made personally worse off in the short term by mitigation efforts.
We have all the "proof" we need.
https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/sites/earth107/files/Un...
We are due to enter another ice age, quite possibly in our lifetime. It has already been warmer longer than 2 of the past three warm periods. Quite possibly because of/thanks to AGW.
The oil has run out and now 2 miles of ice above new york is coming to a store near you.
Everything else is a distraction and propaganda.
But either way the Penguins will be fine.
So you’d rather believe that an ice age will come in our lifetime based on pretty much no evidence, but not that a declining penguin and seal population is beyond comprehension when you have numbers?
Great.
What do you mean no evidence?
Do you understand sea levels rise when it is warmer and fall when it is colder?
In our very recent history, sea levels were 10 meters higher than they are now, that means in our very recent history it was significantly warmer than now. back when the nile was the green cradle of humanity.
From here the only way is colder - enough ice formed in the last few thousand years to drop the sea level by 10 meters, and even if it did warm and melt enough ice to rise the sea levels back to 10m higher than now, Penguins already survived it. We will to.
going back to 2 miles of ice above your fav city puts us back in the era passing bible stories verbally (but at least we know now they will use gaza and tel aviv instead of soddom and gommah).
Oh, and btw, the decline in the Penguin population is almost certainly China overfishing, do you have any idea how huge Antarctica is?
But don't let a few facts stand in the way of you believing what you read in the local tabloid.
By no evidence, I suspect they mean that you are cherry picking very limited evidence out of a broader context to match your theory, even if the broader context of that evidence does not support your theory.
For example: the singular graph that you linked above is from a course that has an entire module on sea level rise, that actually addresses and rebuts the exact arguments that you are making: https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/node/1494.
When the materials you are citing preemptively entire sections debunking your specific arguments and use of the evidence, it is - at best - a sign that you have misinterpreted your own sources by not considering all of the available evidence. It also might mean that your misinterpretation is so common that they can see it coming, leading to the conclusion that you aren't following the evidence, but being led. There are less charitable interpretations, as well, but they aren't in the spirit of the site.