Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

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.

Which other report are you referring to? The only one I can seen in your
numerous posts yesterday is:

"http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html"

Which is a news report.

....of scientists findings. Are you suggesting that they have been
misreported?

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

Not my man:

"Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in
Ottawa".

The only mention of actual areas in that news report was:

"Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice
expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the
average winter coverage in the previous three years."

Which is a very different story to Moncktons claim of record areas of ice.

I put up the reference, after discussing the non-availablity of the
Hadley Centre data on the internet, in case you found it of interest,
and which, in a narrow sense, suggested that Monckton's claim might be
correct, for one Pole at least.