Reprinting a comment from another page, particularly a comment full of abuse (politically correct piece of crap? clown?), inaccuracies, and conspiracist wonderings, is not really worthy of HN.
I'll just point out the first glaring issue about the only fact that the comment even mentions: the "Little Ice Age," though somewhat ambiguously defined, is usually taken to mean the era from the mid sixteenth century to the nineteenth.
There's actually some level of debate about whether the Little Ice Age even existed as a global event, as opposed to several coincidental regional climatic changes. So it's a bit messy (and if it didn't actually exist globally, it would suggest that the article is explaining something that never happened).
I'm not sure of whether there's any scientific consensus on it, however. NASA does suggest the Little Ice Age started in 1550, though.
I'll just point out the first glaring issue about the only fact that the comment even mentions: the "Little Ice Age," though somewhat ambiguously defined, is usually taken to mean the era from the mid sixteenth century to the nineteenth.