Going part by part (like Jack the Ripper said)
I think you may need to go read up on one "
cherry picking" means. Clearly you have a different definition.
No, I read what you linked, and it is the same definition. You may think that you have to get information and discard it to "cherry pick". It could be unspecified confirmation bias with the Svalbard case, but you didn't left any doubt when you said "Just to give an idea of arctic[sic] conditions... svalbard[sic]" (#230) so you were playing with the ambiguity of the term "idea"; it was an isolated example because you live a thousand miles from there and are affectively attached to the place, but it wasn't meant to represent the whole Arctic, not even a part. So what is "an idea of Arctic conditions"?
About your cherry- pickings, lets see then now in detail:
For what it's worth,
Baffin Island and
Barroware also several degrees warmer than average, very similar to 2007. None of them are predicted to go sub zero in the next week.
Your link for what you name Baffin Island says for Friday August 26th 2011:
max 6°C ( 1°
below the average to date, 3°
below the max for the same date of 2007), min 4°C (equal to the average low to date, 4°
below the low for the same date of 2007).
Your link to what you name Barrow says for Friday August 26th 2011:
max 14°C ( 8° above the average to date, 7° above the max for the same date of 2007), min 3°C (2° above to the average low to date, equal to the low for the same date of 2007).
So, your "are also several degrees warmer than average, very similar to 2007" is just a lie. In fact, "several degrees
warmer" and "very similar" look about the same difference, and warmer or cooler, it all depends on the place. So, again, it was just a plain lie.
Ok, so trend lines from multiple independent data sources are meaningless, but picking two individual data points, from one source, to predict "near to a halt" is just fine. Uhuh.
I bet you have no idea what the graphic plots. Your independent sources, the first one is dependent -cryosphere today- and the other two plot the same two increases in sea ice area I've already talk, but in the case of the graphic of NORSEX, the graphic looks doctored in the region of interest -look
here to the big image in the same site, I can't copy or hot-link it here because it is too large, and I'm not going to clip that part because it could look like it was me who doctored it-.
I hope you at least will understand that the amount of ice today -area, extent or volume- is heavily dependent of the amount of ice yesterday and not dependent on the values to date for other years, Won't you? So you better behave and acknowledge that:
1) The Arctic is a very big area and much of it can be freezing while other parts are still warming. (Indeed, that is what happens with the
banquise now)
2) Near to a halt means that: near to a halt, not halted neither reversing, so abandon your obvious efforts to strawmanize me.
3) You can't dismiss that during the last fortnight at least 4 days -maybe 5 or 6- were of sea ice growing. Don't try to attribute that to error margins unless you can point where you previously doubted of the diminishing values owing to error margins or point to the calculations of those margins itself, otherwise it is a malafide argument you resort now just to "win" a debate no matter how.
You are simply seeing what you want to see, no matter you have to say the contrary of what your own cherry-picked sources say. You also do as if you don't understand what cherry-picking or other biases are.
There's a lot more to what you've said, but I'll get to it later, because you are very costly -it is easier destructing than constructing and it takes me 30 lines to counteract three lines of your wishful thinking- as this exceeds my daily dose of English practise.
followed by Red Riding Hood's basket, full of cherries 
: 