Is this enough for you?
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Is Antarctica getting warmer and gaining ice?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/02/is-antarctica-getting-warmer
Science says: Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate, which has implications for sea level rise.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/antarctica_is_losing_ice_sheet.asp
Antarctic Ice Melt
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

Sorry Robert, SKS and the Guardian don't cut it as sources.

Antarctica sea ice highest in satellite era:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Western Antarctica land/ice-sheet mass accumulating:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

Same for the Eastern part of Antarctica:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2007/00000046/00000001/art00004

wow lets get the authors on to some other research areas, these guys would cure cancer in a week.

Try to separate the variables!

The GW part of AGW is a matter of measurement, with some room for limited dispute over what the measurements say about global temperatures.

The A part - anthropogenic - is in the realm of speculation, modelling, politics, backscratching, dodgy stats, faddism, grant chasing - all embodied in the elitist Wittgensteinian nonsense that arguments about truth can be settled by weighted head counts of a self-referenced "scientific community".

It is worth speculating, as bets have to be taken and policies set on the basis of speculation, and there's a difference between informed speculation and uninformed speculation, but speculation is still only speculation. Wittgensteinian head counts have been badly wrong before (cf. eugenics).

Robert LePage

Go back and look at your own links. They in no way contradict anything I said. I made no comment about whether the artic or antarctic was losing or gaining ice - its irrelevent. What I said was that precision measurements have not been going on long enough for anyone to make a call. Before the satellite era ice coverage at both poles fluctuated quite a bit..

mac

sorry but climate scientists aren't qualified either. Much of this deals with forecasting systems, and the analysis of forecasting systems are a business subject (its in marketing). So what we really need are professors of marketing who will tell the climate scientists they are wasting their time using such complex systems for forecasting.

Cox and Nova at their disingenuous best. A brief run through the literature cited:

Lindzen and Choi http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf in Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, 47, 377-390, 2011

One should perhaps ask why this very important paper is hidden away in such an obscure journal, but I won’t. Instead I will deal with the issues:

1. The authors only show data from tropical regions and then claim that represents the whole globe. Clearly, such a claim is not supported.
2. They use start and stop points that are to say the least quite arbitrary and obviously designed to get the desired result rather than the real one. Yes ladies and gentleman that is cherry picking the data.
3. They drew the wrong conclusions: climate models that specify SST do simulate the effects mentioned by Lindzen and Choi demonstrating SST drives clouds, not the other way around.

Spencer and Braswell http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf in Remote Sensing, 3, 1603-1613 2011
One should perhaps ask why this very important paper is hidden away in such an obscure journal, but I won’t – other than to mention the editor of this journal resigned over the failure of peer review with respect to this paper. Instead I will deal with the issues:

1. Spencer and Braswell compared the period 2000-2010 with 100 years data from models.
2. Spencer and Braswell chose the one 10 year period that is most different from the models to show.
3. Spencer and Braswell compared this in the figure with the 6 worst performing climate models over that period – crucially the ones that do not simulated El Nino/La Nina.
4. Models that do a better job of simulation El Nino/La Nina fit the data much better than the ones Spencer and Braswell showed. Oops more of that cherry picking going on again.
5. There was no statistical analysis.

Dressler published a nice discussion of these two papers. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1119/2011GL049236/

I am out of words, but you have to wonder why Cox and Nova chose these already discredited papers as their main evidence.