Ummm, guys, it's just a wee bit more complicated than how much surface area of polar ice is melting or freezing…. The main issue with the increase in hydrocarbon emissions is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. First, CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas, although not necessarily one of the big actors--methane is a much better compound for trapping radiant heat, and the major sources of methane are organic bio-degradation, termite activity and bovine flatulence….ahem. However, CO2 is mostly absorbed by our oceans, which act as huge, nearly infinite sinks for the gas. Problem is that the oceans no longer have a near 'infinite' capacity to absorb our excess HCs. As the oceans have become more saturated with CO2, it has acidified the water. As the pH of the oceans drop, the ability of the water to absorb CO2 also diminishes, so it's very much a double-edged sword. At some point, the theory is that our oceans will stop absorbing CO2 and may even begin to out-gas, which would lead to a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 and corresponding rapid increase in world-wide temps. This isn't even taking into account the effect ocean acidification has on the life balance in the ocean's eco-system, which is still one of the primary food sources for the world's population. I readily agree that the science of global warming is still far from being 100% predictive, but you'd have to be totally uninformed and uneducated about the effects the industrial revolution has had on carbon dioxide emissions over the last two centuries to ignore the potential for environmental and economic disaster caused by rising global temps. I doubt that my generation will live to see the compounding effects of our choices, but my children, your children, and our grandchildren will most certainly experience the effects.