a relevant influence and then to turn around and say that it applies to one group as opposed to another. But even more laughable would be to say that it applies only to other groups and not to my own. If there is anything that is proof of motivated reasoning and a lack of skepticism it is when someone makes that kind of a claim -- particularly if it is not accompanied with any kind of attempt to prove validated quantification of evidence. Hey Mosher -- I went to the track the other day and put $20 on Mueller's BEST because if he ran at the right speed he would win. It was untested because the conditions were not met. When I went to the window to get my money back because the bet was invalid they said it doesn't work that way. What's up with that? Zwally made a statement that indicated that a late-summer (nearly) ice-free Arctic could occur as early as 2012 ; he qualified this saying if the current rate continued In view if the fact that Zwally is a scientific expert on Arctic sea ice, this statement caused many people to believe that a late-summer (nearly) ice-free Arctic could [actually] occur as early as 2012 , whether he intended to convey this message or not. As it turned out, the 2012 melt season has ended and the current rate of shrinking has continued, yet there are still 4 million square km of Arctic sea ice