So you are claiming that Muir Wood's refutation of "Pacific Paradox" is not valid, because it is not valid today but "may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea". Since today is not the age/epoch/era when take place the "Pacific Paradox", I am not convinced. If I add the surface of the Atlantic ocean (which was closed at the time of Pangea) to the surface of the Pacific ocean, it give 165,000,000 km² + 106,000,000 km² = 271,000,000 km², which is more than 255,000,000 km². (adding surface of Southern Ocean and part of Indian Ocean would increase further) So roughly speaking, the Pacific Ocean was more than one hemisphere at the time of Pangea. So after Pangea breakup, its perimeter increased whereas it surface decreased, and there is no topological issue here. I don't see your point. It does "shed light" on my personal beliefs. Because this page is about geology. The page about meteorology and climate is here (please notice "What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?" marked as "anticrank"). See also this. I fail to see a straw man in this. I can still claim it appears to be unsupported because I still haven't see any evidence supporting this claim. Where are the damned evidence that "all the continents have moved towards the north pole since the Permian [...] all the blocks moving from different directions converging on the Arctic by large angles"? I still claim it is false/wrong according to mainstream science because I still see mainstream science's paleogeographic maps showing something else that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" (but North America, Europe and Siberia moving to the North side-by-side between Permian and Jurassic). Yes, of course I did look. Indeed. I don't see your point. What is the diferrence between "converged" and "met" in your opinion? As I previously wrote, I think that Could you show me an event (actual mesurement, or mainstream science reconstruction, but not EE reconstruction that I would not trust) were several location of one or some continents are moving to the North pole in the way you say? Could you show me those location following the longitudes and converging at the North pole, stacking up there? If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I will never be convinced", then I am sorry for you. If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I am here to evangelise and will never give you a point", then I am sorry for you too. I do not see what you mean by "all of this". Of course. Maybe. If that's so (and this is only an hypothetis, because until now I have never Carey explaning his "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension" in the way you say), then my previous comment about that would be obviously irrelevant. If that's so, then i could answer that, according to mainstream science, since the Permian there has been mostly no change in the area currently inside the Arctic circle, some extensional activity (in the "Amerasian Basin" and at the Gakkel Ridge), some compressional activity (between Alaska and eastern Siberia). And the sentence would be wrong as for my understanding of mainstream science. Not yet totaly read. It seem those paleogeographic maps deal only with the Arctic region. I guess they are more precise and detailed than world paleogeographic maps. You are the lucky one. Stay/keep up believing the EE fairy tale, such flat earther, creationists, mormons, Jehovah's witnesses (including the missionary/evangelism part)? Or go back to scientific and critical thinking? The choice is up to you.