Yeah. Here’s his actual quote:
“Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
Not sure if you intentionally decided to misquote that or not. It does undermine your credibility though.
Here’s the article from Reuters.
A 2009 comment by former U.S. vice president Al Gore that the North Pole would be ice-free by summer 2013 has gone viral in tandem with COP26 climate talks in Glasgow. The quote has been used to claim he made bogus predictions. While he did say something similar, the claim misrepresents his...
www.reuters.com

I'm so sorry, I forgot to say summer months! Boy, that really changes everything, doesn't it? Oof. Last I checked we haven't gotten close to the ice cap completely melting in summer. It's safe to say by now that the models were off. Scientists are still trying to figure out why the Antarctic ice extent has grown over the last 40 years despite global warming, even as the Arctic has retreated.
Have you considered following the money? Before Judith Curry was ostracized by climate alarmists she was a climate scientist and professor at GT. She published a paper in 2005 on hurricane numbers increasing and linked them to climate change. As it turned out she had bad data, and when it was pointed out to her she redid the numbers, realized her error and reversed position. By then the damage was done. Other climate scientists took this as a way to increase funding, and they latched onto the "alarmist" career path to publish favorable data that supported their cause, while ignoring the rest, so they could get funding from policy makers. When the UN e-mails got hacked in the 2010s it was found that data was withheld that showed climate change isn't the crisis alarmists were making it out to be.
Here's a bit about Curry from 10 years ago. There's so many uncertainties with climate change there can't be a consensus on the issue, especially given what we know about failed predictions and efforts by the IPCC to cherry pick data favorable to their mandate and avoid the rest.