>The amount of ice on Greenland have seen significant variations over the last few hundred years

Yes, because of well known past climatic variations (some of which were probably localised). There are other drivers of climate than carbon emissions, and these drivers have caused climate to change in the past. That doesn't mean carbon emissions can't drive climate today. We can measure many of these other drivers, and we can see that changing solar output for example can't be driving the current warming.

If I read your argument correctly, it seems you think this argument weakens the case for climate change. I think there's a danger in this method of trying to second guess science. I see a lot of the same form of argument from evolution deniers, too, and I always find it hard to understand. The point seems to be: here is a surprising fact that suddenly makes science less sure than you might have been led to think.

The problem with it is that scientists see the exact same evidence as you do, and of course have already taken it into account. The whole point of science is to rake in as much evidence as possible and include it in the calculations.

Those figures mentioned upthread, for scientist consensus on climate change? That's including facts like this, not ignoring them.

Thanks, enlightened reply.

On the other hand I'm feeling that way too many take this debate to a level where they actively deny any evidence that points towards a different solution.

Try to find where this was considered. I haven't heard a good explanation yet.