Antarctic Ice Sheet Going Bye Bye?

So the doomists are now using terms like "unstoppable" to describe rapidly melting sea ice in Antarctica.  It's unstoppable, eh?  There is enough sea ice in this particular ice sheet to raise global sea levels by as much as 4 feet if it were to melt completely.  In this century alone (by 2100) we could expect sea levels to rise by as much as 1-3 feet, and most scientists are erring on the high side of that.  Global warming is "partly" to blame because shifting winds have brought more warm water currents underneath the glaciers which is causing them to melt faster than anticipated.

I'M MELTING!!!
Is this what's happening to Antarctica??!!

However, the article does concede that Antarctic sea ice has recently reached record levels.  Yet, these findings "don't clash" with that information.

Huh?

It's either melting like the Wicked Witch of the West, or it's freezing.  Which is it?

YOU GLOBAL WARMING DENIER, HOW DARE YOU SHOW ANY SKEPTICISM FOR THE 97% CONSENSUS!  97%!!!!!!!!

Look, I have never considered myself among the despicable 3% of vermin who dare say that man-made global warming is not true.  Climate is changing, it always does.  It could at least even be partly a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, I just personally feel like we do not have enough data to draw any sort of reasonable, objective conclusion on the subject.  So I'm not in the 3%, but I'm not in the 97% either.  I'm just not sold, and speculation is not nearly enough for me to throw my hat in with the people that think this is the biggest crisis in human history...and that drastic steps need to be taken and forced upon us RIGHT NOW.

Climate, ocean, and sea ice data only go back about 100 years (and the further back you go the less reliable it becomes), which in geologic terms is not even the blink of an eye.  Thousands of ice ages and other climatic cataclysms have occurred in Earth's history, through no fault of any human.  Human impact on the planet has been minimal geologically speaking, and even less if we just go back to the start of the Industrial Revolution.  The biggest problem I have always had with this issue is absolutist nature of the way the argument is presented.  It goes against everything I teach in my classes about kids being able to think critically and show healthy skepticism for such topics.  This ability to question appropriately is something that the National Science Education Standards emphasize.  However, when it comes to global warming and climate change, the term "settled science" is used.  What exactly does "settled science" mean?  It means that there is no debate, there is no opposition, you are not allowed to challenge it because this is scientific fact, and shame on anyone for trying.  As I tell my students, that's just bad science with a capital BS...

Science is supposed to be about questioning and skepticism.  That's the very first step of the scientific method! Without questioning, there can be no experiment.  So by calling the anthropogenic global warming issue "settled science," it is telling anyone with a critical eye that there is no point to experiment, so don't even try.  Fortunately, that attitude didn't stop people like Einstein after his relativity theory lay waste to Newton's Laws of Motion, something that had been considered "settled science" for hundreds of years.  This is in contradiction to just about everything a good scientist should believe.  We are taught to question and criticize, but on this particular issue, not so much.  Why could that be?

I don't have a good answer, but conservatives have always railed that global warming/climate change fear mongering has always been an excuse for liberals to force more government regulation down our throats at the expense of economic progress.  The liberal argument is that if we do not do anything to save the planet NOW, there won't be much of a planet left, ergo, government must do something.  Herein lies the fundamental disagreement between who should be responsible for doing the something (the government or the private sector), and the level of severity of the problem (doing something drastic NOW versus a more gradual approach).  I personally don't put much stock in the fear mongering because the doomists over the years have set several deadlines for when the ice caps will have completely melted in the Summer...all of which have come and gone with no ice-free Arctic.  Also, Hollywood makes pretty good disaster flicks (See The Day after Tomorrow).

Besides, if the terminology being used today is now "unstoppable," and the rapid melting of sea ice is in fact unstoppable, what could a major governmental regulation possibly do at this point to save it?  Wouldn't using the term "unstoppable" mean at this point that saving the sea ice is a lost cause, no matter what anybody does?

Both sides have a fundamental distrust of the other, but right now it's the liberals who are in charge, and thus can have their way.  However, one day, much to their chagrin, conservatives will return to positions of authority.  That's just how politics works.  Both sides will eventually have an opportunity to solve the problem the way they see fit, and we will see who is right.  Good science always wins in the end.