Perhaps you mean the Antarctic ice, since the Arctic ice dramatically thinned this last summer.
Palerider, you're just not doing much for your credibility. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the Antarctic, not the Arctic. As it turns out, claiming that the Antarctic ice thickened, if true, is not really saying much, either.
Perhaps you don't know that there's an important difference between the two poles. You see, Antarctica is a continent, unlike the Arctic, which is just ice sitting on the ocean.
A prediction of global warming is that in some areas of the globe there will be more precipitation, including snow. So increases in ice thickness should be expected in Antarctica if it's getting more snowfall due to global warming. So in your confusion, are you actually unwittingly supporting global warming?
You're sinking Palerider. Sinking fast.
As for your challenge about my directly arguing with the science in your silly paper. I have directly answered you before about this. Maybe you forgot.
Since neither of us are climate scientists, it would be absurd to have that conversation. Hell, you have already proved that you don't understand such basics as the greenhouse effect and maybe don't understand the difference between Earth's two poles. And you want to directly debate fine points of atmospheric science?
Arrogant much? Maybe a little? Out of touch with reality a bit, are we?
I appealed to the broad scientific establishment for my proof. I also supplied several links which discussed the paper you pasted. The links directly refuted your paper in a number of ways. The links accused the authors of the paper of being absurdly wrong on different points. Here are the links again, although I am confident that the reason you ignored them the first time is that you can't follow the arguments:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html
I can't follow the arguments either. But I'm willing to admit it. That makes us different, doesn't it?
Let me guess: you don't care to respond to these scathing criticisms because they appear on blogs. So it's the source of the arguments that you object to, not their substance. In fact, you won't even deign to consider their substance, due to their source.
That's as good an excuse as any, I guess. I mean, if you need an excuse. 
