A better approach would be to limit the amount of posts hashing the same postulation. This is not the first time somebody came up with the idea that the rate of loss will be slower, and you are not a lone voice in thinking that, rather you are a lone voice in voicing it so much.
Wait for new data, or find old data and present it originally. In the meantime, don't try to respond to any and every post that differs from your opinion. If you must respond, do so in one such post per day. If you prefer to post endlessly on your favorite subject, feel free to open a new thread where it will not disrupt.
Using the quoted example, S. Pansa came up with an interesting fact relevant to the thread's subject - Slater's model's prediction is nosediving. The late Slater's model is well known hereabouts and did not need much explanation. Whether its prediction is good, bad, wrong or right doesn't matter. Your response, OTOH, did not provide any new information. Do I think the model is the holy grail? No, the opposite. Did I respond? No, I did not have anything new or interesting to contribute on the subject.
If you believe most people here come for the drama and are ice doomers, you believe wrongly. Most readers of this thread come here with an open mind, have no preconceived notion of what is going to happen, If they have one they change it monthly, and are humble enough to realize the Arctic is greater than them and is always full of surprises.
Maybe you have not read Friv for enough years to realize he is the first to throw a wet blanket on people's new record expectations, as soon as the evidence points in that direction. His personal wishes and love of drama notwithstanding, science is the judge.
From what I have seen so far, it seems you have built a preconceived notion of how the season will end, and constantly look for various reasons to support this conclusion. You are not being reprimanded because of your claims or opinions, but because of the way the discussion is being held. Take a breath, stick to the science, follow up on your claims and items of interest from time to time, bring new perspectives, and keep an open mind.
If you think current Beaufort volume or extent or whatever predicts Beaufort extent at season's end, why not analyze this quantitatively using past data?
If you think extent correlates with continental temperatures, why not quantify past temperature data of various weather stations, correlate with CAA and Beaufort ice, and compare to the current year so far?
I hope I have made this clear enough. You are a prolific poster with a good scientific approach, which is why I took the time to write such a lengthy post of explanation. But you must make some changes, as outlined herein.