You have misunderstood - yet again!
My view is that Earth's climate is subject to constant microclimatic change. In the past there have been many instances of almost abrupt dramatic change, both endogenously and exogenously induced. That is scientifically proven. The composition of Earth's atmosphere has been subject to dramatic change over long periods of time. Also Earth's climate has been affected by changes in the Eath's orbit around the Sun, by changes in the axial tilt of the planet, and by the receding gravitational pull of the Moon, as it recedes further away from the Earth. Lastly, and not least, the climate has been affected by the slowing down of the rate of Earth's rotation.
Yes, there is evidence of the Earth warming up, over the last 450 years, as far as reliable records go back. And as the Jason Project first discovered in the 1970's any warming up of the Earth will affect the polar regions the most, because that is where more than 90% of the planets ice is located. So the ice melt in the Arctic, freeing up the North West and North East passages, the ice melt in Greenland, and the ice melt in the Antarctic as seen in the splitting up of the Larsen Ice Shelf is documented fact.
There are two questions here, as I see it. One, what is causing it, two is this a recent trend or has it been going on for far longer than the 450 documented years?
Now it is known in Britain that the period of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was called the ''mini Ice Age'' documented because in winter the River Thames in London regulary froze over, something beyond all credibility today. It is also known that during the Roman occupation of Britain the climate in Britain was almost sub-tropical, far warmer than it is today.
It would seem to me that the Earth is in a regular cycle of warming up and cooling back down again, warm during Roman times, cooler during the Middle Ages. These are natural changes. It is alleged that since the 1970's, per Al Gore, that the human race is responsible for the increase in global temperatures, because of carbon dioxide emissions arising out of human economic activities. His schematic ''An inconvienient truth'' I have seen many times. It takes scientific theory and piles assumption on assumption to reach a set conclusion. I don't find this convincing, in fact it is full of holes. The so called science of human causation of global warming is to me an unproven theory.
One of my interests is astronomy, and I have noticed that most of the scientists questioning the Al Gore version of events are grounded in astronomy. As an amatuer astronomer I know that the carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere is minute, a fraction of one per cent. In the past the carbon dioxide content has been much greater, as high as nine per cent at one stage, but the Earth did not fry, let alone imitate Venus. Also I note that the planet Mars has an atmosphere that is 97% carbon dioxide. Now Mars is further away from the Sun than Earth and the atmosphere is considerably thinner, but even allowing for this Mars is a cold world, so cold it has polar ice caps of largely frozen carbon dioxide. No greenhouse effect here. In fact taking into account that the evidence on Mars is that it was once considerably warmer with plentiful water, the carbon dioxide failed to prevent Mars from freezing up.
Taking this into account, I don't find that the actual measured increase in the carbon dioxide content of Eart's atmosphere over the last forty years to be that significant in itself, not least because we are starting from such a small base. It may be that the carbon dioxide increase is reactive to and not causal of temperature increase. This is in my view a conjectural matter as it cannot be proved one way or the other.
What does concern me is the politicisation of science, now in much the same way as economics has been politicised and used/abused by politicians and those with a political agenda. This is especially so when scientific opinion is hijacked and distorted into representing one particular view, where contrary views and challenges to the set view are opposed to the extent of denying free speech and expression to its proponants. It is aso especially so when it is used to support taxation and the funding of quangos living off the backs of such hijacked and manipulated opinion, taxation that is unproductive and in other circumstances immoral, such as the taxing of hospital patients for being patients.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.