vtsnowedin wrote:You have to look at the qualifiers and limits to that six meter measurement. Look at the quote.
A British research team studying the Greenlandice has discovered that the ice sheet in their region had lowered six metres in just a month
Notice they don't tell you what region that was. Top of the ice cap in the middle of the island? Doubt it. Within snow cat distance from the coast and sea level? Probably. Left vague to alarm the easily led and create a dramatic story? Of course! Is there real science behind the story? Yes they would not risk their professional reps. on telling a complete lie.
I'm betting that one of their final conclusions in their paper is "That more research is needed"
Character assasination at it's most absurd. Assuming that these fellows would be stupid enough to use a sample region that was prone to this sort of behaviour, (the inference from your argument being that they probably used such a sample to cause alarm), how long would they survive as salaried professionals? Why, some sleuth in the vast industry holding AGW to account would be onto them like s#*t on a blanket. Such sampling methodology would quite rightly be exposed for the incompetency it was, incompetent on so many levels, I would not even know where to begin.
The jury is out on climate issues, agreed, given the lack of hard evidence that conclusively shows that the climate is entering volatility in preparation for a transition to a new range. AGW sleuths have gone to great pains to shout this out to the world at large and much mitigational effort at reigning in capitalism (which is something of an oxymoron anyways) has flopped by the wayside. To think that said sleuths, many of whom are industry veterans, would let anything dent that impasse without a challenge is either naive or stirring.