1. Given that the warming from AGW can been occurring since about 1970, I would imagine that most of what is melting now was frozen before 1970.
2. The "unprecedented melt" referred to is a one-day melt, not a decades-long process like that we are experiencing under global warming and mentioned in this article.
3. That article is from 2009. In 2012 the Arctic sea ice was far below any extent recorded since 1979.
4. Antarctic sea ice is increasing because it's sliding off the continent of Antarctica due to the increased melting.
5. The graph you link to is scaled out so far that the warming of the past several decades would look like a vertical line -- if you could even see it on that scale. You're just zooming out on the time scale until you can't even see what you don't want to.
6) Man's contribution to carbon is 3% of what? One-third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from fossil fuel emissions.
Of course, you can come up with thousands of excuses to not believe AGW. I have yet to see one of them that holds water.
I see that emissions per capita have gone down, but I have also noticed that the population of the U.S. is growing. We need to decrease total carbon dioxide emissions, not emissions per capita. Additionally, North America has by far the largest per capita carbon dioxide emissions among continents (excepting Antarctica), so I wouldn't necessarily go tooting your horn about how great America is about emissions.
I agree that taxing items according to the carbon emissions can easily solve the problem of countries not wanting to cooperate with decreasing emissions. But we need to decrease our total emissions, too.
The effects of global warming are going be more severe than the slight discomfort of feeling warm. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Droughts will be more common. GDP will drop. It's economically favorable to us in the long run to work on reducing carbon dioxide emissions now. In any case, fossil fuels will nor last forever, so we will need to develop alternative energy sources at some point. I would rather develop them earlier so their cost will come down, which will help keep energy prices lower as fossil fuels run out.
Your post smacks of "Let them eat cake!"
By growing certain plants in areas that currently have little vegetation, then burying the plants so the carbon they extracted from the atmosphere remains sequestered, we can remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It's not nearly enough to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate at which we currently do. There has been some work with "artificial trees" that can remove more carbon dioxide. You can read more about carbon sequestration.
To me, it seems easier to just increase energy efficiency and find alternative sources of energy. I don't understand why so many people are against those ideas. I remember some vague talk about it "destroying the economy" if we do so, but that sounds like alarmism.
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.