Food for thought.

If humans are NOT causing global climate change, then we aren't trying hard enough...

The ice on Greenland is STILL there from the last Ice Age, until it melts like the Mile high Ice that was on Michigan and Canada, then the last Ice Age isn't even over yet...

Science, it's your friend.

Fair enough. Although I'd like point to the increasing average temps as a valid reason to stall climate change and then roll it back 2-3 degrees; when the Greenland Ice Sheet is gone, so will be the glaciation in Antarctica. That's going to spell trouble for all of us.

The obvious and immediate answer is "that's not the North Pole." Maybe choose the right image next time?

I like the way you try to equivocate a naturally occurring phenomena to an unnaturally existing condition. Doesn't work, but I still find it amusing.

You know, you're probably right. That most likely isn't the north pole. My point is that NEITHER pictures with their words serve as arguments.

You pose a question, sure. But simply doing so doesn't rebut all other arguments that have been put forth disputing the global warming, ah, I mean climate change model.

It's not intended as a rebuttal (and isn't as it neither condemns nor condones), it is a straight-forward presentation of something that is real, man-made and is intended to show one aspect of the depth of human technological prowess, it's distribution and effect on the Earth. By extension, it obligates the viewer to examine their own beliefs concerning what impact humanity can and can't have on its environment with a diminished level of ignorance. What happens after that is out of my hands. I would hope that at least a few people will absorb this fact of our existence and realize that we're not so insignificant when it comes to the mess we're capable of making.

Ok, so let me ask you something. What do you think is influencing our climate more. Those little lights shining outward into space? Or this massive thing pictured on the left here, which bombards Earth with light, heat, and radiation literally on a daily basis?

Obviously the sun is more powerful at @1000W per square meter. And before you make the mistake of going into gotcha mode remember that the sun's delivered energy is part of an established system that has auto-tuned itself to a point of relative balance. Our lights are an anomaly, a disturbance in that previously tuned system; each light is a heat source in and of itself and the electricity consumed by those lights is generated by another heat source. In other words, each of those lights doesn't just represent but is an anomalous source of additional heat disturbing a balanced system. Additionally, production of the electricity they consume also generates waste products which inputs anomalous levels of insulative gases into the atmosphere, further unbalancing the system. So when you see that map of those "little lights", you're not just looking at some insignificant image; what you're looking at is a nighttime field-map of heating zones, of places that are generating greenhouse gases, of places where industry and automotives operate 24 hours a day unbalancing what was a relatively stable system. Are you beginning to understand the significance of the image?

And there is far, far more of it in the atmosphere.

You wouldn't be introducing me to any unknown information. No offense intended, but it's extremely unlikely that you can introduce me to any unknown information; if you could, you likely wouldn't be in this discussion because you would have already learned the reality of the underlying science on your own, rendering your engagement in the conversation redundant.

Again, you're making the mistake (or engaging in the deliberate act -I can't tell whether you've got a political axe to grind or whether it's simply ignorance of the science) of confusing a pre-existing component of the balanced system with introduction of new materials. Combustion of petroleum products produces carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, sulphur oxides. This results in artificially increased anomalous levels of carbon/sulphur dioxide & di-hydrogen oxide which allows for an initial increase in temperatures. The initial increase in temperatures causes warmer air which holds more water vapor, more water vapor allows greater retention of heat. Ordinarily, this increased retention of heat would be attenuated by longer growing seasons and thus more natural carbon sequestration and corresponding reduction in heat values through increased vegetative growth. Unfortunately, global deforestation in favor of the establishment of grazing (grass) lands is steadily eliminating one of the Earth's primary organs for removing water vapor/carbon dioxide. While grass does act as a sequestration organ, the difference between grasslands and forests is similar in proportionality to the capacities of a small wind turbine intended for home generation of electricity and a commercial turbine meant to power a city.

*For a truncated summation of greenhouse gasses and their effects, see: epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Please read all the tabs.

*For a more in-depth explanation of all the gasses named at the aforementioned, see: Wikipedia.

*For the really hard-edged science of the gasses, I strongly urge you to read all of the papers given citation in the footnotes at Wikipedia.