I didn’t “cherry-pick.” I went straight to the top of NASA’s website where they explain their position on climate change and a succinct explanation of the underlying theory. You blew past a whole bunch of information to find a paper that you think supports your position.
Let’s talk about it. Your paper identifies a trend of snowfall accumulation in parts of the Antarctic that started 10,000 years ago and therefore has nothing to do with the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that started in earnest about 140 years ago as a result of industrialization.
What did your paper *not* say? “This finding disproves the theory of anthropogenic climate change,” or even “calls doubt” to the theory, or anything remotely like that. The conclusions are far more cautious than that.
The lead author of your paper also said that it might take just a few decades for the losses to outpace the accumulation. Why would he say something like that, I wonder?
I read your source, will you read mine now, or continue to bluster?
Here are some charts on this too for good measure