Brad, if you're unwilling to believe NASA and NOAA, then who will you believe? Surely not the Koch brothers' paid hacks. Are you suggesting that the scientists at NASA and NOAA are part of a vast conspiracy that goes back at least to 1958, when CO2 monitoring on Mauna Loa began? Since then we've had ten administrations, six repub and four dem, so both parties are in on the conspiracy.
As for the recent increase in polar ice, that is one data point. It's remarkable only because it bucks the long-term trend of rapid ice loss. While climatologists are trying to understand what it means, global warming deniers are busy touting it as proof of their argument. Why? Because they have so little evidence to support their claims.
As I said before, if you're unwilling to accept even the basic facts (rising temperature and CO2 levels), there's nothing much we can discuss. Much like the drunk standing beside his crashed car saying "What tree, Mister Ossifer?". The cop would like to know WHY he ran into the tree, but the drunk is denying the tree exists, even though it's sitting where the hood of his car used to be.