The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear.
You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.
oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ??
less than 40 samples ( years )
i have read all the literature and it is not convincing.
we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually.
but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements.
ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome
Ice is melting that has been around for millions of years. What other data do we need? We only have one planet; all data collection can be labeled "cherry picking". That just isn't a productive line of reasoning.
The sun's heating and cooling cycles happen much more slowly than the current climate change. We can see the average increasing even over the past two decades when the data is quite reliable. We can see that the average ice at the poles is decreasing. There are certainly ups and downs but the long-term trend is clear.
You could at least do the bare-minimum and read the evidence at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Seriously, that's the absolutely least you could bother doing before running around posting nonsense.