Sorry as good skeptic I don't accept predictions based on duboious computer models as per your link below.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

The data from the GRACE satellites show a drop in the gravity field over the Antarctic which can only be explained by a loss of ice or possibly by the earth springing back after the ice has melted either way it shows that the land ice has decreased.

As for your other link beam me up Scottie no intelligent life there.

Now how about those glaciers why are some 90% of them in retreat ? why has the Arctic dramatically shrunk since the 1980s as per the satellite photos or is it all a big conspiracy and there really are no satellites and its all a big hoax. No you are simply ignoring the data because it does not suit your view of the world. That is not tedious it is just plain silly.

It gets even sillier because sea levels have risen steadily over the most of the last 100 years and more, now there are only two ways that can happen one is by thermal expansion, and the other is by ice melt, either way it proves that that the globe is warming.

warmair

The issue is not whether you can find evidence of warming in some part of the globe.

The issue is whether the globe as a whole shows warming that is
1. anthropogenic
2. necessarily detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial
3. significant enough to warrant governmental intervention, and
4. which policy can improve having regard to the downside and upsides both ways.

Thus even in your own terms what you have just shown does not establish what is in issue, by a long shot.

It is no more cogent than if I were to point to evidence of cooling somewhere and just flatly assume catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling which policy can improve.

“…the cause and man's contribution are issues which are open to some rational debate…”

Data don’t interpret themselves. That requires theory, and if your theory is based on logical fallacies, it will be invalid and unscientific, which I'm proving it is, while you're failing to defend it.

Obviously it won’t be open to you to enter into rational debate while ever you:
1. evade the issue – didn’t answer my question, did you?
2. jump to conclusions unjustified by your data – non sequitur
3. rely on ad hom – anyone who disagrees with you is “hibernating” i.e. has cognitive problems
4. misrepresent the issue – whether the ice-caps are shrinking
5. continue refusing to explicitly reject the logical fallacies that comprise your argument.

So I’ll ask you *again*: will you please acknowledge that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that logical fallacy cannot be the basis of science?

GRACE has problems:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009E&PSL.288..516R

And it is plain why the study contradicting NASA no longer is available at NASA links:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-036

The contradictory paper is:

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

Fancy that, a paper which contradicts NASA's findings, in fact is the opposite of NASA's findings is no longer welcome at NASA!

Sea level rise definitive study:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

No unusal acceleration of rise, in fact a deceleration.

Tedious warmair.

Thus yet again it turns out that the warmists, so full of haughty insults about others not understanding “science”, not only don’t have science on their side, they don’t even have logical thought on their side.

Jardine K. Jardine
First let me make it quite clear I always try to avoid Ad hom attacks, but if other people wish to attack me that way, I am tempted to respond in kind.

I am glad to see that you accept some parts of the globe are warming, It is also clear from the way that glaciers, and the poles are melting this is global phenomena, which if you needed, it is confirmed by many other sources of information, such as sea level rise.

The first thing to consider is do we know of any possible cause that could account for the warming that has taken place since the 1970s. The only answer which is compatible with the data, is the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So what caused the the greenhouse gases to rise so abruptly. There can be little doubt that humans are responsible due to the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we are burning on a daily basis.

The logic is straight forward, and further more it was predicted that warming would occur as long ago as the 1890s.
Quote
"So I’ll ask you *again*: will you please acknowledge that appeal to absent authority is a logical fallacy, and that logical fallacy cannot be the basis of science?"
End quote
I am not required to answer any question you put and will only do so if I think it has some merit. The question is basically an attempt to introduce a strawman argument.

Warmair

It’s still impermissibly illogical.

“The question is basically an attempt to introduce a strawman argument.”

Mind-reading.

It’s perfectly meritorious to attempt to obtain agreement that the basic principles of logic apply, since the argument of so many warmists is that it must be so because of the “consensus” of climate “science”, which is an appeal to absent authority.

So the warmists have to be dragged kicking and screaming, or rather squirming and insulting, to the proposition that, yes, the basic principles of logic must apply to them too. But even then you can’t bring yourself to do it.

So after all this, all we have is that warmair will *not* explicitly reject recourse to logical fallacy, and why not? Because he asserts my alleged subjective state of mind as his reason.

That’s it guys. That’s the reasoning why we face anthropogenic global warming that policy can improve. That’s the best the warmists can come up with.

But of course, even if we conceded everything that warmair has argued so far – and it is not conceded – all we would have is:
There is reason to think that the globe is warming
There is reason to think it might be anthropogenic.

So what?

Still waiting to see how you get - without appeal to absent authority - from there to your conclusion that it’s necessarily detrimental rather than neutral or beneficial, significant enough to warrant governmental intervention, and that policy can improve it having regard to the upsides and downsides both ways.

You are miles from a logical argument, and when specifically challenged to rule out relying on a fallacy, you answer with more fallacy!

The difference between the personal arguments of the warmists, and the personal arguments of the skeptics, is that the warmists have the burden of proof, and the skeptics don't rely on ad homs for their conclusion!