Oh for goodness sake. The article is deliberately misleading. A few nuggets of 'truth' within doesn't change that at all. >1) BBC reported in 2007 global warmi

Oh for goodness sake. The article is deliberately misleading. A few nuggets of 'truth' within doesn't change that at all. >1) BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 Well that isn't strictly true. The BBC reported that some US scientists had made a prediction that the arctic 'could' be ice free by 2013. Of course the BBC reporting of that was pretty irresponsible, at least in the headline. Maslowski's actual prediction was for a range of years, with 2013 being at the low end and he is quoted in the article[1] saying "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040". For what it's worth I still think his productions will prove closer to reality than the not ice free till after 2040 ones. >2) Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012 I will assume that this statistic is correct, but it is still very misleading. That is not a 'recovery' when you look at the longer trend: it doesn't make up for the losses to extent over recent years never mind decades. That is why I linked the above graph to put it into context. An increase from the all time low is hardly surprising at all. So this is an example of a lie of omission: they neglect to put the figure into the wider context. We could also quibble about mentioning only extent and not volume. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm