the Arctic Ice Cap and the Antarctic cap are different in that one is sea ice the other is continental ice. Also in what hemisphere are the highest amount of GW gases emitted?
for those who wish to know more your can look at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html
You're 2nd sentence comes close to paranoia. Do you really think Government's want to create a myth of global warming? What do you suppose they want to accomplish? That scientists are so easy to manipulate with money explains why the Harper government is so keen to control what they say in public. You do realize most of these scientists are tenured university professors and so fairly removed from political influence. Governments also do not directly dole out money to scientists there are usually various funds boards and so on that control such funds not all of which, perhaps not even more than 50% that come from government.
You should also provide full disclosure on your involvement in modeling just to be sure you are not misrepresenting something you do at home with your stock portfolio as a professional expertise,
Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders. Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research. Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program. That is just one program. If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy? And where do the universities get the money? A tenured professor earns most of his money through research. A lot of that is government grants too. Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.
Also, gov't isn't there to protect you. That is their stated goal, sure. How do they protect you though? By believing you are too stupid to take care of yourself and protect yourself so they have to protect you from yourself. Why do you have to wear seatbelts? It isn't because they are worried you might hurt someone else. It is to protect you from your own stupidity. They protect you through controlling you. If that is fine with you, well good for you, but I can take care of myself.
Modeling is my job and I get paid well to do it. I model insurance assets, reserves, premium, policy count, expenses, anything that goes into an insurance policy's profit or cash flows. I started this year's models with about 8.4 billion in starting assets. I project them out somewhere between 30 and 50 years. This information gets reviewed by multiple states, the Federal Reserve, AM Best and any other rating agency. I would be willing to bet that I know more about modeling than you do. Modeling out as far into the future requires that they have a very good handle on all of the assumptions. Small miscalculations can cause results just 5 years out to be completely unreliable.
Let me give you an example I am very familiar with. When Long Term Care insurance (to pay for nursing home stays) when it first came out companies weren't sure on the assumptions. Most of the assumptions they got right but one assumption, lapses (people cancelling their insurance) they missed on. The projected it would start at 8% and grade down over 10-15 years to 3% and stayed there. With that, the companies were projected to make a bunch of money. The rates didn't stop at 3%, they kept dropping down to 1.5% or 1% or even lower for some companies. This product that was going to be a huge profit machine for companies with just that one change in assumption caused many insurance companies to almost have to close down. They lost so much money. This one assumption starting 10-15 years out turned billions of dollars in profit to billions in losses.
The climate model has to have a lot more moving parts. You are sure that their assumptions 15 to 20 to 100 years from now are accurate and they aren't missing any interactions? And they just in the last couple months figured out how vents in the ocean bottom affect currents or something major to their models. That was a huge piece they couldn't figure out. Their models also assume no major shocks to the system. They might assume the same basic pattern of volcano eruptions that we have seen over the last 100 years or so but what happens when another major eruption happens? Another Mt Pinatubo (sp?).
We have fewer assumptions than the climate models need and we realize our results 10+ years out are very unlikely to happen. If they believe with more assumptions and still many unknowns that their models are accurate out 10-100 years, they are either arrogant beyond reason or stupid.