Ice extent isn't as important as ice volume. That's the reconstruction I'd like to see...that will tell us something.
What will it tell us, sieur?
Regarding the AGW conjecture, whether ice is thinning or thickening would only inform on whether there is a possible warming trend or not. It would have absolutely no bearing on the essential debate (you know, the one that is "over" according to the wishful thinking of the Chicken Little Faction) about whether any warming of the planet's atmosphere is attributable to human activity or not, no?
See, this whole blitz by the ecoparanoid faction trying to shift discussion of AGW-related issues to non-sequiturs and red herrings is what is important. No intelligent person I have ever spoken to or written about the AGW controversy has ever stated that they believe absolutely that the planet is not warming. That is an acknowledgement of the fact that the climatic temperature is ALWAYS either going in a warming trend or a cooling trend - there is no thermostat which keeps the temperature at a fixed position.
The only focus of controversy and discussion should be on whether there is any substantive evidence that human activity contributes to any measurable warming. The fact that warming might be taking place is in itself immaterial to that discussion.
And from everything I have read and understood about that latter issue, there is absolutely no strong evidence supporting a conclusion that human beings have anything significant whatsoever to do with an atmospheric warming trend.
