I don't follow your reasoning about water and ice in the least, Truther. ;-) I think your hatred of Al Gore is clouding your understanding of the problem.

The ice at the poles is not floating down in the water like an iceberg. It's sitting on solid ground for the most part or extending itself in a thin coastal shelf on the surface. If it were all floating deep in the water in the form of icebergs, of course then it would displace a lot of water, but it's not. It's mostly sitting on the ground in various places. A little of it is floating (and melting) in the form of icebergs. If it mostly melts, the ground under it will gradually be exposed and the sea level worldwide will rise.

Are you not aware that ice expands in a certain temperature range? If you completely fill a glass bottle with water, then freeze it, the ice will break the bottle, because it expands enough to do that. Is that hard for you to understand? Why not put it to the test then? I have no idea what you think the volume of ice as compared to the volume of water has to do with proving or disproving global warming as a theory.

It has nothing to do with it.

If the poles melt, the sea rises, because that ice was mostly above the existing sea water before it melted. Another thing that happens is this: the ocean currents become affected by a decrease in salinity where the melt flows in and they change, and that causes climatic change in certain regions. It could trigger a new ice age in northwestern Europe and northeastern Canada/USA...for example.

We live in a flexible and ever-changing environment, and there are many different factors involved. Some of them are due to human civilization, some are not. We can do something about some of them, and nothing about others.

Just because you already hate Al Gore (for whatever reason) is a very poor reason for deciding that if he's for anything, it must be a lie, and you should therefore be against it.