1. 

To cherry pick, one has to know what to look for to prove the point. When global warming deniers cherry pick, they know what they are doing; they are lying.

If cherry-picking proves ignorance, alarmists are the most ignorant people in the history of the this planet. To be fair, I should probably limit that to the last 50,000 year of our planet. Nobody understands science. Some people simply have observed more and are more familiar with numerous theories. Those who consistently mistake theories for facts, e.g. alarmists, are among the dumbest among us.

Using 30, 60, or even 100 year trends as a basis to establish "Global Warming" is an alarmist's first miss-step. An alarmist always follows the "mantra" of climate "clown" science that portrays CO2 as a GREAT forcing on the climate without ever considering the thousands of other factors involved in rising temperatures.

Climate "clown" science doesn't even know how the core of the Earth affects the whole climate. Simple changes in the core could have astronomical affects. Magnetic fields always change and their direct affect on the atmosphere is not known. That's just 1 factor.

Cherry picking should be left for people who pick cherries. It seems that ALARMISTS have decided to use CO2 as their "cherry". Maybe you should do a little more research on CO2, because you seem to have "picked" the Poles as proof and the simple fact that the poles have always gone through temperature changes over time means that you seem to be picking at the same "cherry" yourself.

To me the science isn't settled. I only consider it a theory that hasn't been proven. Nor can they make any accurate predictions.

Then they think a tax is what's needed for a problem I don't see any undisputed evidence of.

Yes I'm a skeptic.

You are right, I don't understand the science but, thanks to you, I am learning. Let me see if I have this straight:

Increased amounts of soot on ice will cause increased melting if subject to suitable radiation. Therefore an area of the world with ice but no sunlight for a large part of the year and minimal amounts thereafter will find its ice reducing at increased rates and it is all because of man-made CO2.

Yes, perfectly clear now, thanks.

Well, apart from the missing link between soot and man-made CO2 levels, and the fact that the Arctic ice is still with us despite years of "warmest year ever" claims, and the fact that ice levels have always varied, not to mention the current record amounts of sea ice despite CO2 being on a bit of a high. Shouldn't the theory be reflected in the facts somehow?

It mentioned "the children" though so it must be right. We MUST act and leave the children as poorly off as possible by destroying our industrial base. They may be in poverty but they will have the smug satisfaction of knowing that their parents thought it was in a good cause.