According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012

Inconvenient truth.
Damn inconvenient, indeed

Curious,
Low temperature records are set when there is a clear sky. Take the recent record set in Oklahoma last year in Bartlesville. -31F. The ground was covered with snow (blocking heat from the earth), and it was perfectly clear sky. Temperatures dropped to a record low because the heat was radiated to space. However, since CO2 increased so much, this should be impossible. However, it happened. Here’s what the CAGW fanatics don’t get. CO2 is one of may green house gases, with water being number 1. Now if you increase CO2 from 250 ppm to 400 ppm, that seems like a big increase. However if what your are doing is increasing TOTAL greenhouse gases from 2.03% to 2.04%, then that is not even noticeable. Which is why Oklahoma set a record low.

Another proof that the Gore effect is real. If my memory hasn’t totally failed me didn’t Big Al and Hansen just recently make a personal visit to Antarctica? We need to donate for funds for him to make a trip to the Arctic and presto CAGW fixed!

Man Christian_J., classic! Mind if we clone that disclaimer? That even stands taller than the letters behind a name and says it all.

Curious says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“It happens that Antarctic temperatures are increasing”
Show this to your friend : http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/news/index.php?id=41
South Pole New Temperature Record
Posted: 2012-06-18
On June 11, 2012 the temperature at South Pole Station in Antarctica was -73.8°C/-100.8°F.
This broke the previous minimum temperature record of -73.3°C/-99.9°F set in 1966.

Not terribly surprising – this was predicted as a consequence of global warming in 1991, by Manabe et al 1991 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281991%29004%3C0785%3ATROACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 and http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C0105%3ATROACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2). See pages 795 and 811 for details of this rather counter-intuitive effect.
Mechanism: additional _fresh_ water on the surface from more melting land ice increases the halocline gradient, reducing upwelling of warmer bottom waters transported from the tropics (the surface being cooled to the air), thus making for more sea ice. In the Southern Hemisphere _winter_, where it doesn’t affect albedo very much (sea ice around Antarctica melting almost _entirely_ during the summer). And an effect that will likely fade in importance with additional warming.
Increased Antarctic sea ice doesn’t balance out the huge decreases in Arctic sea ice, and as I note Antarctic ices is a not surprising effect of warming.

Curious
Glad you realize your friend is filled with scientific garbage. There is no known relationship between ozone levels and ice formation. In fact the CFL conjecture regarding ozone depletion has become a bit iffy in recent years. Some maintain the ozone may always have gone through cycles and we merely discovered the same without understanding all factors. The jury may have to reconvene. Warmists maintain ozone depletion is associated with Arctic ice depletion and Antarctic ice growth. It is unlikely both are true. In fact there is no real science on ozone and surface temperature excepting a hypothesis that the stratosphere will get sharply colder. Of course Warmists also say global warming causes the stratosphere to get colder.
The distinguishing feature between ground ice versus sea ice is the latter much more susceptible to melt because of wind and currents. Speaking of which. That is responsible for the current Arctic decline. Breakup because of weather, and then melt. And note that your friend would consider the melt of southern Greenland to be of extreme importance. Antarctic ice build up? Not so much.
But hysterics go hysterical at anything and have the curious ability to work every catastrophic fad into the grand mal.Your friend can likely discuss for hours GMO, chemtrails, and other grand schemes.
No abnormal weather has occurred in decades. The weather has been surprisingly moderate and historically benign. Likely attributable to the very mild global temperature increase since 1985 or so.

Any decent journalist would be questioning why the big melt in the North but a big freeze in the South? Trouble is we don’t have any decent journalists anymore, just lackeys of the big climate lie…

Curious says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm
… Again, the article misleads its readers by failing to report the reason why ice levels are increasing on the Antarctic continent, and deliberately confusing land-based ice and sea ice, …

“… all time Antarctic sea ice extent record …” No, we’re comparing like with like.
The reading you choose will depend on your background. Visit the blogs that Wattsupwiththat links. Find those that ‘speak’ to you. Try to read broadly rather than deeply. Get to know what sounds reasonable. You will get convincing arguments on both sides of the issue that are hard to refute but which don’t pass the smell test if you have broad knowledge of the field.
As an example, I will give you my own conversion to a skeptic. I believed in AGW until Michael Mann presented us with the hockey stick. I had been a student of Viking history. I knew how the climate affected the settlement of Greenland. The hockey stick didn’t pass the smell test so I became curious. Because of my background, the two people who speak most convincingly to me are Burt Rutan and Richard Lindzen. Your background is different and you will find different voices more compelling.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/09/a-cool-headed-climate-conversation-with-aerospace-legend-burt-rutan/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/profess-richard-lindzens-congressional-testimony/

This all too typical of the big lie tactic. Totally contradict the truth repeatedly until the 60 % who are basically uneducated in the World believe it out of shear conditioning. These are a vicious minority of powerful elitests who believe its their destiny to rule and enslave what they view as the inferior. This is notin fact about competing scientific ideologies.

Curious says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm
If anyone can point me to some good, foundational reading on climate science (without AGW bias),. I would be very grateful. Thanks for reading.
I too am curious, namely because starting from an Antarctic sea ice post you end up asking for readings on climate science.
So first, I suggest you find the search box on WUWT (its under the ad at the top right) and enter “sea ice” – at the bottom of the returned links note that there are older posts to be found. Keep clicking backward until you are several years back, perhaps 5. Then start reading forward, following links to other blogs and papers.
Then you could start with another topic. Your choice. Then note other skeptical-view blogs such as Jo Nova, Climate Audit, and The Reference Frame (the last two can get very technical – you may want to go to your local university and ask at the Physics and Chemistry Departments for a slightly older copy of an introductory text).
Read all the comments so you learn who knows what and how they know what they do. For example, a fellow named ‘tonyb’ knows history. You can take what he says to the bank if he writes that folks froze to death in city x in year n. If you read enough you will learn about the views folks hold and how they treat other folks. You could read at Tamino’s site or at Real Climate for a comparison with the above mentioned ones. A different sort of material can be found at “The Chiefio” site and at Lucia’s The Blackboard.
Anyway, after about 100 to 200 hours of reading, come back and ask more specific questions.