Well... ok Billy I'll leave you to your word games and etc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The data you are now clinging to about submarine's showing thinning(at least you stopped clinging to the Northwest Passage) is questionable at best. It also shows how little you require as to data to form an opinion. A blurb in a BBC article is all it took. Now you hold that be hard and fast fact, the military itself is skeptical of that Rothrock study that drew those conclusions, but not you. No, you have a new pet fact you are holding up as hard proof of something. You simply don't know enough on this matter to form an opinion. You aren't even skeptical enough to check out a blurb from a news article before holding it to be fact. You might think about that, but seeing a pattern in your posts I doubt you will. You did actually notice I never said the ice was thinning at least. btw... You are the second person in this thread to struggle with reading. My post described the ridiculous claims of "the arctic is melting!! It's CAGW" as nonsense. Subject and object is important when you are reading. The arctic ice recovery this year is as high as it's ever been since 1980, basically almost a record since the rather recent beginning of observation via satellites. Arctic ice is growing this year. So anyone claiming the arctic ice cover is melting is simply wrong. Which again goes to the credibility of the CAGW extremists. Again they are proven to be childishly foolish, spreading nonsense at every turn. But that doesn't stop people, like you apparently, who require no proof of anything, just some wild IPCC claim to hold something up as 'scientific fact' Al Gore went on the record this year, 2009, saying the arctic would be ice free by 2013 based on his IPCC 'scientists'. We'll see about that claim too. But when it too turns out to be yet another bold claim by the IPCC and alarmists proven to be bullshit, that won't bother the people who gobble up the crap the IPCC puts out, they'll just selectively acknowledge what they want to be true. Like you have done in this thread. You make so many basic logic errors, you selectively acknowledge points based on your own personal bias, you jump from one pet 'fact' you are clinging to to another so easily, and with so little skepticism or fact checking on any of those things you put forth as such concrete 'fact', it's difficult to hold a discussion with you on a complicated topic like this.