I didn't refute Lucky's post. I simply related it to the global warming trend.
As I explained in my reply to Lucky, but trying for you again:
A 74 year cycle (look at the pictures in the paper Lucky linked) goes up and down. In a cycle. With up being warming and down being cooling, in 74 years it starts at zero, goes up, goes down back to neutral, goes down further and then goes up back to the neutral point. (Or, depending on where you start in the cycle, goes down, back up to neutral, up further and back down to neutral). The longest period in one direction (warming or cooling) is half the cycle length, so 37 years.
So there is no way that the lunar arctic influence of the paper either
a. demonstrates any net effect over time, or
b. has been the cause of a 100+ year warming trend.
