To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you? My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this. That is why the IPCC was formed.
I am even more swayed by the urgency of this problem since companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon have come on board.
The science domain is not full of pseudo-science. The blogosphere might well be, but that's not the peer-reviewed science domain. I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong places.
Our AGW signature is now accepted as being enough to make the difference. Comfort probably has very little to do with this if you are not intending to stick around for the next 20 years or so. If you are, however, then it might be wise to listen up!
Finally - what is this evidence about new ice in the NH? I think you might misunderstand the significance of the quantities of new ice. An increase in 1-year ice is an indication that older ice is disappearing at a faster rate. If we are only left with 1-year ice, then that means that it is not very long before the north pole will be ice-free in summer.
Is that what you are talking about?