Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near
normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior
ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
Winter sea ice could keep expanding

snip

Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either or you wouldn't quote
in support of a claim that "In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice
extents were observed at both Poles." an article that clearly refutes
it.

I said you might find the article of interest, after pointing out that
the Hadley Centre, a major player in the field, might not have put the
data on the internet.

Reading with understanding isn't your particular strong point, is it.

The article refutes nothing of the kind.

HTH

Logic is indeed not your strong point. Nor for that matter is
comprehension. Is there anything you are good at apart from taking as
gospel anything that agrees with your fundamentalist position and
ignoring or rubbishing anything and anyone who doesn't?

The classic non-response.

Ok look at it another way.

You are relying on Monkton who claims "record sea-ice extents were
observed at both Poles" but the news report quotes the man in the best
position to know the situation in the arctic as "seeing ice coverage
rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year" so on
one hand there is claim for a new record extreme and on the other a
claim that the extent is close to what was considered normal. One or
other of those has to be lying and I know which one my money would be
on.

The Canadian report I mentioned quotes actual figures.

Perhaps your man could also quote some? Rather than an
apparenty-subjective 'seeing'.