Read the following and make your own decision.
Apples and Oranges
But the reason that the North Pole is melting so much faster (last years summer minimum shattering the previous record of 2005) than the South Pole is very easy to understand.
The South Polar Ice Sheet is two miles thick. That means that the ice is at an altitude of over ten thousand feet where the temperature is much colder than a mere six or so feet as at the North Pole. This makes it impossible for the slight rise in global mean temperature to have any affect at all in the south accept around the edges of the continent.
Also, it sits on a continent rather than on water that is above freezing - as in the north. The ice in the north is an average of 6 to 12 feet thick and is being warmed from beneath as well as above. This has a much larger impact on the North Polar Ice Cap.
Dumb question, but if the North pole melts, the oceans shouldn't rise then, if the ice is floating on water. As long as the South pole holds, or grows, the ocean levels will hold, the way a melting ice cube doesn't raise the water level in a glass.
Dr. Hansen also pointed out that the ozone hole (the portion of the lowest ozone being roughly the size of the Antarctic ice sheet) is letting more heat escape into the atmosphere as the ozone is a greenhouse gas. 
The South Pole is quite literally the coldest place on Earth, and it always will be much colder than the North Pole no matter how much global warming occurs. The Greenland Ice Sheet is very similar to the South Pole and the research shows that it, too, is melting at an accelerated pace around the edges.
So, all the hype about getting rid of the old R-12 freon is actually making Global Warming WORSE???? I thought it was supposed to help?
"....between 1996 and 2005, they detected a widespread glacier acceleration and consequently an increased rate of ice discharge from the Greenland ice sheet," write three climate scientists in an article for RealClimate.org of research published after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was written. 
It would seem that the north and south poles should react the same, but because of these gigantic differences they cannot. Antarctica is not the canary in the mine..........the canary is the Arctic, and it's telling the scientists that things are changing faster than they had thought possible.
Who said anything about freon? Freon isn't ozone and ozone protects the earth from the harmful rays of the sun and over the south pole there is a hole in that most of the ozone is no longer there.
Ice on water will not change ocean levels when melting BUT open water in the Arctic picks up more heat from the sun because it does not reflect it like ice does so more heating and faster melt from Greenland and of course Antarctica where most of the frozen water is and that WILL raise the ocean level.
Ozone is considered a green house gas which keeps the earth warmer. The aresols which depleted this natural layer may have allowed the earth to cool some from it's natural state BUT the ozone layer protects us from the harmful rays of the sun so more skin cancer for one thing.
Also another example of man influencing the climate's weather.
It was a referral to how freon reacts with ozone.
I heard somewhere, that they did ice cores, and found there was a hole in the Ozone layer over the South Pole off and on again for thousands of years.
While we're on the subject, though, isn't freon heavier than air? How did it get to the upper atmosphere?
Poul Christoffersen, a glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, said the 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cited "is both incorrect and misleading." He believes the actual number is closer to 0.1 percent.
“It is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world,” Christoffersen said. “There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature.”
"The conclusion that was drawn from this, that 15 percent of Greenland's once permanent ice cover has melted away, was highlighted in the press release, not in the Atlas itself,” HarpersCollins said in a statement. "This was done without consulting the scientific community and was incorrect. We apologize for this and will seek the advice of scientists on any future public statements."
Maintaining the accuracy of the new maps though, may not be enough. When comparing the maps to recent satellite images Christofferson and his team found “numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands.”
Such a fraud perpetrated by the left why should we believe anything they tell us.
But no sooner was this shocking evidence of global warming reported than voices throughout the scientific community began to question the atlas’s claims.
For a start, there is nothing new about ‘Warming Island’ — it was clearly shown on maps with this name more than 50 years ago, long before the global warming scare began. And nor is there any evidence that Greenland had in recent years lost 15 per cent of its ice.
The U.S. climate-change sceptic science blog Watts Up With That pointed out that one reason why satellite images might have shown such a huge ice-loss was that a lot of Greenland’s coastal ice sheet has been blackened by soot and volcanic ash, so that it no longer shows up white on photographs from space.