I said the same thing in two different ways since you didn't understand the first time. That is not back tracking. If you don't want to discuss it you can stop replying any time.

"Good" is a subjective measure. No one has defined a cutoff point between good and bad conductors. You did not address that at all. I said that "in an engineering context it’s a mediocre conductor" and you just provided numbers that support that conclusion.

In the context of wilderness survival, you can eliminate most materials on those lists and compare its conductivity to rocks, snow, trees, bushes, grass, air, etc. Suddenly water is a very good conductor relative to the other materials you are likely to encounter.

This is wrong in at least four different ways:

1. You're conflating thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and latent heat of fusion.
2. If conductivity was the main factor in keeping drinks cool (it's not), then a low conductivity would mean ice is bad at cooling drinks.
3. The amount of energy required to heat or cool a substance is the heat capacity, not conductivity. It is more right to say that's the reason ice is good at cooling drinks, but it's still not correct.
4. Ice "wanting to stay ice" is the latent heat of fusion. To melt ice, you pump heat into it and yet it doesn't change temperature until it's fully melted. This is distinct from heat capacity since there is no temperature change. Ice has a high latent of fusion (even higher than many metals), and that is why it's good at keeping your drink cold. Ice can stay cold (and therefore maintain the ΔT necessary for heat transfer) while pulling heat out of the drink.

You didn't address a single thing I said. I'm aware that it's measurable and I don't need the physics lesson. Besides, you're not in any position to be lecturing anyone on thermodynamics.

I don’t think there’s an agreed upon definition of “good” conductors.

In an engineering context it’s a mediocre conductor and can’t compare to most metals, but in a wilderness survival context water is a very good conductor of heat and is to be avoided at all costs if you want to stay warm.

In practice it’s a better conductor than snow, rock, and any other material you’ll find since it’s a liquid (I know that’s not technically correct, but in practice it might as well be).

Can confirm. I’ve slept in a snow cave a few times and it’s quite comfortable inside without the wind chill.

I’ve slept in a snow cave a few times in the pacific NW. It does in fact start to melt the snow a little bit, and I recommend making your snow cave a smooth arch on the ceiling. If you leave any pointy bits on the ceiling the melt water can drip down them and onto your sleeping bag. If it’s smooth any water will run down the side and now get you wet. It’s not enough melt to cause problems though. Just enough to melt the rough snow on the surface.

Outside temps were always between -5 and -10, so it may be different in the arctic or even just the interior where it gets colder than the coast.

Snow caves overall are quite comfortable though. The temp hovers around freezing, but since the air is so still it’s comfortable to take your shirt off and get changed.

Where do you live? If you've got camping gear and gas money it's not too difficult. Don't let your dreams be dreams.