So now the question is...

Furnishedowner,

First off... go back and actually READ the other articles you posted... But even if you don't do that... READ the headlines again and look for the obvious...

What is MOST interesting is how the articles cite melting, but for some reason the sea levels are NOT rising... this does not cause to QUESTION WHY?...

"The mainstream scientists are the voices that I find have the most validity."

The problem you have here, is that IF you were able to actually name what you consider to be the "mainstream scientists" that you listen to, in all likelyhood they would be the ones that are now PROVEN to have an agenda and not interested in peer review that CHALLENGES them... But I am curious as to WHO you consider the "mainstream scientists" to be...

"I don't really care that we go into another major warming or cooling period in another million years. I care about the effects now in my lifetime, and my kids' lifetime. I care about the manmade effects that we can mitigate. That we HAVE to mitigate.

As we can see from the articles you further referenced, the Earth has been through this before, which is why they are able to learn "lessons" from it...

"It's simply too important to dismiss this as just controversial. We WILL continue to get data, and it can not be ignored. I stand with the mainstream scientists on this."

But you MISSED the point... it IS controversial BECAUSE they not only IGNORED the data contrary to the predetermined conclusion they wanted to protect, but manipulated and cherry-picked the data, as well as MADE IT UP...

Again, I find it astonishing that you not only are not indignant that they did this, but you continue to defend them...

"I leave you to debate or discount the data further, as you wish. I have no more time to spend on this. But in the meantime, the ice is melting"

You haven't shown how the DATA is NOT discounted... I am SPECIFICALLY referring to the DATA that was provided by the CRU, GISS, etc. and used as the BASIS for IPCC , the supposed "gold standard" which at this point looks more like "gold plated"... In addition, the PREDICTIONS that the IPCC presented using the computer modeling BASED on the flawed data have not only NOT COME TRUE but they could not even predict it SHORT-TERM, so why do you give it credence LONG-TERM when THEY admit long-term is MUCH HARDER to predict...

Now mind you, YOU are the one who DISCOUNTED what the skeptics were saying which ended up BEING TRUE... INCLUDING your "deep-throat" source from a few months ago...

You know, it's OK to say "I was wrong" or "I don't know"...

I find it interesting that you always all of a sudden "have no more time" when the discussion is not going your way...