Few points, first NASA has attributed the low 2007 minimum and the preceding several years worth of ice loss to the changes in the winds. Not to rising temperatures in the arctic.

....

"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said."

....

When ocean ice migrates to lower latitudes it's going to melt.  More to the point however I would point out that citing sea ice extent is somewhat comical at present given the (legitimate) calls of "Weather is not climate!" from several in this thread and around the debate in general in regards to recent snowfall totals (Something the GCMs didn't predict - in fact they predicted the opposite).  2007 was certainly a striking year if you just look at a line on a graph...but it was still one year and subsequent inquiries that go deeper than a line on a graph reveal a different story than the typical assumption of a warming arctic. 

Second, on the issue of glaciers I would start by pointing out that glaciers are responsive to a whole lot more than simple temperature for their melt and growth.  To see this in action you can look at some of the major glaciers that are in fact growing right now such as the Himalayan glaciers (among several others - I can get you links if needed).  If global temperature changes were a primary driver of glacial melt this would not be the case (they are certainly important, but factors often local to the glaciers play a critical role as well), or to put it another way, it's more complicated than hot=melt, cold=grow.

From here I would point out that we are just now in the past couple of years getting quality measurements of glaciers and we are finding that our numbers might not be what we thought they were:

"Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS – CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated."

And finallly, I would add that we are currently in the midst of the Holocene Interglacial, several glaciers were formed when average global temperatures were 6C(~11F) lower than they are today over 12,000 years ago.  And the real kicker is that for large extents of those 12,000 years the temperature has actually been a bit higher than it is now:

The idea that now suddenly under this recent allegedly human induced warming the glaciers are just rapidly dissapearing as a result seems a bit far-fetched when you look at the full context of temperature on the timescales of a glacier's lifespan. 

With all of that said it may actually be the case that glaciers are retreating right now, but understanding why is a lot more difficult than simply pointing out that they are (or pointing out that a few others are growing as I did, for that matter).  Given the issues involved in accurately measuring glacier retreat/growth I find recent satellite data to be most reliable but I don't doubt that some glaciers are melting as your graph points out.  But simply being in retreat is not abnormal for glaciers during any period over the last 12,000 years and it's certainly not a case for AGW.

No need to throw insults, rather typical though. You are saying someting is a fact. Facts are things that have been proven to be the case. This is a theory, from people who's motivations have been proven to be dubious at best. I'll spell it out for you...T-H-E-O-R-Y. Basic scientific principals that are needed to get to facts. Who really is being close minded and irrational here?

Why do you use 2007?  There are data for 2009:

As you can see, since 2007 the extent has returned to approximately the average for 2002-09.  So far in 2010 the extent is again normal.

But I digress.  Over the last 30 years, the only years in which we've had accurate measurements (this is a very short period of time for this sort of thing, so it's hard to draw conclusions regardless), Arctic sea ice has had a declining trend.  However, Antarctic sea ice has had an increasing trend over that period of time, hitting record highs in 2007 (alongside the Arctic minimum).  If the theory of global warming is true, wouldn't we expect BOTH poles to have less and less sea ice over time?

In any case, even a loss of all Arctic sea ice wouldn't be catastrophic, even though it is unlikely.  It's happened before, if we look at historical records.  Even in Greenland, Viking ruins have been discovered underneath retreating glaciers, indicating it was warmer, or about as warm, during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today.

elprincipe + sqrl = win

In other words, Common Sense wins over Doomsday Hysteria Propaganda?

Not with that many capital letters it does.

The rest of us just get tired competing with you people. The reality is sguy78, your thread didn't really attract anyone new who have changed their minds.

Well, it's kinda hard when people like you generally ignore the facts and actual debate.

Which is generally a problem.  You can't have a debate about science when you are closeminded.

Hell you can't even have science when your closeminded.

For someones opinion to have changed, they would have needed to be openminded about the backtracking Phil Jones did.  Which if you see the full thing is actually pretty damning unless you want to hide from it.

That you see this as a competition says more to undermine your arguments than sguy78 was able to do throughout the entire thread.

edit: PS - And for the record so there is no missunderstanding here sguy78, I'm not a fan of the way you approached this debate either. 

@thread topic more generally,

Stealing this from WUWT QOTW:

From a recent interview given by the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, comes this extremely ironic quote:

Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?

Rajendra K. Pachauri: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?

"Why indeed? …"

@Kasz216 - Believe it or not, but i have actually been trying to follow up on the points some of you have made about everything relying on just one guy. In fact i am highly sceptical that this would be the case, as should you be.

@Sqrl, He has very valid reasons for appearing arrogant about this, considering the high percentage of support from the international community.
Even though the quote makes him appear ridiculously close minded i agree with some who have insisted that it is way past the point of debate IF we are to actually try and prevent things escalating out of hand.

That's quite an odd statement from him really, not a well thought out second setance at all.

I'm more worried about the wider impact of this whole issue as opposed to the damage to the IPCC's credability. I'm very skeptical about man made climate change but the debate is far from over and this whole episode is just going to make the general public less open to all the good climate science currently being undertaken.

Then there is the fallout to science as a whole with distrust of scientists amongst the general public increasing due to the actions of a few people. It already has the President of the US National Academy of Sciences worried. While this is quite concerning perhaps it does highlight the need for a change in the way science is communicated to the public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8525879.stm