Renewable Revolution

Thanks for that explanation agelbert. It is as I thought: even if we assume that ice is growing in Antarctica (which is not certain by itself) it does not dispute the trend of overall global warming as Antarctica is only a region and regional differences are not reflective of the overall global trend. For example whilst there is growth in the south pole it is not enough to offset ice melt in the Arctic. Moreover even NASA itself stated that growth trends in the Antarctica is likely to reverse in the near future and does even state the business of measuring growth/melt is a complex one.

I know I have been a bit hard in driving a point home but it is important to tackle common counter-arguments as there are many people out there (and I feel these sceptics are growing). It is easier to do that if you can speak with confidence and that confidence does not come if you are unsure yourself. Like I said earlier, there is some conflicting information out there. Not all of us are experts to confidently shift the wheat from the chaff hence the question and acting as devil's advocate.

Also sorry about using the term "global warming hypothesis" I mistakenly used the incorrect term. What I should have used is the term scientific theory so I apologise there. As further clarification you got to remember that I am firm believer in limits to growth and part of limits to growth is believing that growth at some point stops due to some limiting factor be it energy/resource depletion or excess pollution of which global warming is a subset of excess pollution. So to believe in limits is to believe in global warming.