Max do you see a problem here?
I posted links to the most reputable government agencies and universities on the planet. You posted a link to google. But to be fair I followed your google link and only one item on the first page was to a site worth more than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
I don't get my science news from Paris Hilton and you shouldn't either. Go to the sites with credibility ... NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, etc. and you will find a very different story.
I teach at the University of Washington and can tell you, for an absolute fact, there isn't a single person studying climatology here who would agree with the statement you made: Not one!
What you have done with your google query is guarantee a prejudicial result. Suppose one were to take your inquery and slant it the other way replacing the word "gaining" with "losing." Would you consider those results equally valid? Why? Why not? Try it. If you want to be a scientist you MUST be objective. Try these queries instead:
"Arctic ice cover"
"Arctic ice coverage"
"Polar ice coverage"
and let the "pro" and "con" show themselves without prejudice.
When you do you will find articles such as this:
Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717&feedId=online-news_rss20containing statements such as this:
"The Greenland Ice Sheet shrank at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres per year from April 2002 to November 2005, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, US, found. In the last 18 months of the measurements, ice melting has appeared to accelerate, particularly in southeastern Greenland."
You can't have it both ways. Even the President of the United States has now acknowledged the reality of global warming in his 2007 State of the Union speech.
That pretty much leaves anyone still arguing the point looking a bit like a member of the flat-earth society.
The planet is round ... climb aboard for a spin.
