'Runner,
I don't understand the denialist obsession with Al Gore. '

Wobbles

I don't understand why schools would scare kids and brainwash them with such nonsense as Gore's movie. Also what exactly are you trying to achieve by people who demand evidence being called denialist. It is an atrocious attempt to demonise those who demand evidence before lining the pockets of the gw religion brigade. The 97% of 'scientific' believers you quote is laughable and does your crediblity harm. Next you will be saying that the 97% are relying on evidence.

The problem Runner is there is a mountain of evidence supporting AGW the three most obvious are:-

1 In the past when CO2 happened to soar due to natural causes temperature also jumped suddenly, for example during Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

2 The CO2 and other GHGs slow down the rate of heat is lost from the surface and this is easy to prove.

3 The warming that has occurred over the last 100 years has no other reasonable explanation.

It is amazes me that there are people who have been persuaded that this is not a problem. Sadly the fossil fuel interests deliberately go around misleading people simply because it is bad for their bottom line.

As for the article itself it really is not of a high enough standard to warrant any comment.

Warmair tells us: "The warming that has occurred over the last 100 years has no other reasonable explanation."

Well except for the fact a mini-ice age occurred in the mid 1700's and the warming has been steadily increasing at the exact same miniscule amount per annum ever since.

And the fact all of the planets have increased temperatures slightly over the same period. But surely that can only be an odd coincidence.

And Greenland's glacier's were melting at a faster rate in the 1930's than they are now (after recovering completely).

And then we have the latest IPCC report's so called anomaly that notes the global temperature hasn't actually increased as projected since 1998... but the IPCC still expects the increase to re-start.

And as with any Religion, question the stuff that doesn't make sense and you will be deemed an evil blasphemer.

Is the talk about the same planet?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/

Here we go again.

Take a single measurement and pretend it is representative of the world. The reality is that the increase in extent of Antarctic sea ice is linked to strong circumpolar winds resulting from climate change. http://acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/029c6e3e-fa29-1031-820a-40404adc5e91/2014%20ACE%20Position%20Analysis%20Antarctic%20Sea%20Ice%20and%20Climate%20Change%20FINAL%20LOW%20RES.pdf

There is also some evidence, although getting the data has difficulties, that total ice volume in the Antarctic has decreased.

But what you should really consider is average surface temperatures, which have clearly increased over the past 30 years http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1984/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1984/to:201

Agro, how do increased global surface temperatures and warmer winds create more ice?

If it's cold winds, where is the increased cold coming from to form the increased sea ice?

I note from the introduction at your link:
"One important aspect of Antarctic sea ice that we know very little about is change to its volume".

And:
"What is happening in the physical, chemical and biological systems beneath Antarctic sea ice is poorly understood".

I can agree world climate is changing. But are CO2 emissions the actual and only cause?

I wonder if science will one day measure and assess solar warmth taken up in CO2 and CO2 taken up in ocean algae plant matter now known to sometimes exist in blooms beneath ice and surrounding waters.

Surely Stanford has some answers by now.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html