Oh snap, he-she said. Can you say 'gimme money for a grant pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee.' http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN...
TL;DR:
1. This is one measurement among many. The honest scientist considers the whole of the data, rather than cherry picking the 1 among N measurements that support his hypothesis.
2. Existence of conflicting evidence is a good reason for more, not less, research.
3. There's nothing to suggest that one set of measurements reflects a trend. The global system is complex, and the existence of surprising phenomena should be a reason to try to understand better, not an excuse to bury our heads.
4. The relationship between stability and total mass is probably not strictly positive and is certainly not linear. So even in the best case scenario, the risk of destabilization should still be studies.
The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict.
One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice.
More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
> "Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice."
This is exactly what they say in the Bloomberg video also, if you had even dared to challange your incorrect beliefs.