The London Daily Mail breathlessly explains:
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history.Hmm. Since science tells us Homo Sapiens originated in Africa 130,000 years ago, which means they were pretty busy in Africa at the time and couldn't have possibly been up in the Arctic studying the areal extent of ice coverage, that seems a tad stretchy.
The Mail didn't mention any significant rebuttal points, but there are some. The late 70s marked the end of a long period of cooling that began around 1940 (ironically about the same time above ground nuclear testing began). The late 70s were also when NOAA began launching its satellite fleet. Without an equivalent satellite picture from 1935 or perhaps 1035, it's a pretty bold proclamation to say the ice has never been where it is today.
Additionally, in order to make a cause-and-effect conclusion regards sea ice dissipation and atmospheric temperature it would seem necessary to prove that Arctic temperatures have never been higher than today. Take a look at the graph from Clyde, NW Territories and pay close attention to the last time it was this warm.
As to holes in the ice pack, we already know they're not unheard of, even at the North Pole. This is thanks to actual photographic evidence. Sadly, there is no corresponding photographic evidence from 130,000 years ago for comparison's sake.
But in our modern world of progressive enlightenment bold proclamations without all the facts are in vogue. For instance, as Gustav thankfully diminished before landfall a quick check of "fightglobalwarming.com" STILL SHOWS a link between GW and hurricane strength, something as yet unproven by any scientist but presented as gospel by the left. Or shall we say, 'by faith'?
Whatev. As Nancy Pelosi constantly reminds us, such trivialities really don't matter when there's a planet to save.