There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it would, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

All the 'Sea Ice' can melt for all its worth. It will not raise the levels of the oceans.

Only melting ice that is already on a land mass can add to the level of Oceanic waters.

If the Average temperature in the Antarctic never reaches 0C or 32F, then that ice cannot melt. The outer levels of the ice sheets are already in the water, as they are in the Arctic. As the ice melts, it cannot raise the level of the water it is already in.

That's not 'Deep' Science'. It's High School Science, that somewhere along the road, we were all told.

After reading many of the links provided in this and other articles. If the (Anthropogenic Global Warming) proponents want to discredit skeptics of their theory, here is what they should do and accomplish this with true scientific accuracy and flawless documentation.

Fund and recognize on a totally level plane, the skeptics themselves.

That says equal acquisition to grants, equal access to current data and documents, put the media on notice too, give equal time on both sides of the scientific debate, and encourage the researchers (Scientists) to quit throwing daggers at each other.

They (Scientists) are now equal and should not be influenced by the anticipated funding from powers that be for their science endeavor, or the politics of recognition coming in to play with regard to the documented findings of research.

They should be familiar with "PEER REVIEW" it is not new, it’s scientific…

You understand there is a built in bias with regard to real credible climate research because the political and media entities are fixated on a goal.

For God's sake Mr. Loris on our best day National Weather Service using the "GFS" ,the "ECMWF"&"NAM” Models ; current observations, aircraft soundings , current radar images, spotter reports on the ground, ships reports and the forecasters routinely will not lock in forecasts in a specific area any more than three days out.

So, there are some variables rational minds should contemplate before we jump off the cliff on either side of this Grand Canyon of differing interests, political persuasion, or scientific evidence, and last but not least economic consequence; whether the is consequences are "Intended or Unintended!”

I'll shut-up and go away now, but before I do, I must remind everyone on both sides the fate of one skeptic we all know well, he was placed under house arrest for being a skeptic…."GALILEO GALILEI" 1564-1642!

The TRUTH is out THERE…FIND IT!