You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.

Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.

From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?

>That is incredibly unlikely without some other super-mega sci-fi project like a space elevator.

Or mirrors? A multi-km parabolic orbital mirror can be built out of only thin mylar and a minimal stabilizing structure - with only minor construction, launch, and maintenance costs. You can then use that for extremely large-scale, high concentration photovoltaics, of the sort that just aren't feasible on Earth at almost any price.

As for microwave lasers (aka masers - old enough technology that lasers were originally called "optical masers"), the whole point of using such things is that the atmosphere is almost perfectly transparent to microwaves. Unlike sunlight which sees ~30% losses to atmospheric absorption, microwaves mostly make it all the way to the ground. And then, since you're basically dealing with high-frequency radio waves, further concentration and conversion to electricity is relatively straightforward and efficient.

Why would you have sunlight shining directly on your orbital panels? That would be stupid, you would be much better off putting them on Earth. What you want to do is put up massive mylar parabolic reflectors, possibly many km across and stabilized by photon pressure and/or gyroscopic effects, that concentrate sunlight onto extremely high-power photovoltaics. Orbital reflectors can cost practically nothing to deploy and maintain, unlike their Earth-side counterparts which must be built strong enough to survive gravity, weather, and life, and will consume land area that could be put to other use or allowed to lie fallow for ecosystem restoration. (especially important for island nations)

And microwave lasers (aka masers - a technology that predates lasers considerably) actually make incredible sense for beaming the power back to Earth, since the atmosphere is extremely transparent to microwaves. Of course even a tightly focused maser will spread out after 36,000km, so you'll need massive receiving antennas on Earth covering many square kilometers, especially if you want to avoid cooking everything in the airspace alive, but power density could easily be many times the palty 1kW/m^2 of sunlight, and microwave mirrors and antennas are a much more rugged, simple, and efficient technology than optical mirrors and photovoltaics.

Plus, if you're willing to put up with the bureaucracy, you can probably get your military interested in testing its potential as an orbital death ray, dramatically improving the funding available for at least the early facilities.

And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.

Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.

No, retard, the statistics cited include the known and forecast problems from fukushima.

Since the figures quoted are normally ones that have been out for a while (and there's nothing wrong with that) they don't include Fukushima - and a citation is definitely needed with your forecast claim with more recent things because there doesn't seem to be anything around that matches what you describe.
Did you make it up or can you point to something real?

What sort of echo chamber does this woman live in to think she's got a good record as a manager to run on?

The Enron book "The Smartest Guys in the Room" has got some good examples of people that far out of touch with reality and some broad hints as to how they ended up that way.
Goldman Sachs was another very weird 1300s Venetian Merchant Prince sort of environment that was probably even more fucked up.
IMHO she's thinking she was born to rule and everything else is just a detail or someone trying to get in the way of her destiny.