An excellent example of confirmatory bias is this article:
http://www.physorg.com/news116505069.html
This indicates that the data displays that: "the effects of the current warming and melting of Greenland 's glaciers that has alarmed the world's climate scientists occurred in the decades following an abrupt warming in the 1920s. "
due no doubt to high temperatures in the 1930's (see graph)
but then they go way beyond the data to say:
"The fact that recent changes to Greenland's ice sheet mirror its behavior nearly 70 years ago is increasing researchers' confidence and alarm as to what the future holds. Recent warming around the frozen island actually lags behind the global average warming pattern by about 1-2 degrees C but if it fell into synch with global temperatures in a few years, the massive ice sheet might pass its “threshold of viability” – a tipping point where the loss of ice couldn't be stopped.
“Once you pass that threshold,” Box said, “the current science suggests that it would become an irreversible process. And we simply don't know how fast that might happen, how fast the ice might disappear.” .."
This is not science, it is speculation. In fact it is hysterical speculation. "The current science suggests that it would become an irreversible process"?
This is not science, it is a green cult, and it is likely, should current temperature trends continue to fall, to damage science very badly.