I find it amazing that a new study promoting global warming has been issued right after the release of emails exposing fraud by the scientists.
Here is a news story that is so contradictory in it's own data it is amazing.
www.reuters.com...
Okay so they published this study:
"In the study published in Nature's Geoscience journal, scientists estimated that East Antarctica has been losing ice mass at an average rate of 5
to 109 gigatonnes per year from April 2002 to January 2009, but the rate speeded up from 2006."
they Published it before it was confirmed? So none of this study could be accurate?
"This, if confirmed, could indicate a state change of East Antarctica, which could pose a large impact on global sea levels in the future," Chen
said.
"...has been losing ice mass at an average rate of 5 to 109 gigatonnes per year from April 2002 to January 2009..."
Okay is a rate of 5 to 109 gigatonnes a huge gap or what? These scientists cant be anymore accurate than that?
Oh it gets better:
"Previous estimates for East Antarctica projected anywhere between a 4 gigatonne per year loss and a 22 gigatonne per year gain, according to the
report"
So which is it a gain or a loss?
"Rising temperatures are thought to be the main cause of melting ice, and world leaders are under pressure to agree on a new climate treaty at an
upcoming U.N. summit in Copenhagen to curb global warming"
If global temperature were the cause, and they are saying "thought to be the main cause", so there are more causes and this is only "thought" to
be the main one, but the point is wouldn't it be more even of a melt if this was the main cause:
"The key result is that [we] appear to start seeing a large amount of ice loss in East Antarctica, mostly in the long coastal regions (in Wilkes Land
and Victoria Land), since 2006," Jianli Chen at the university's centre for space research and one of the study's authors, told Reuters"
So some areas are melting faster than others? HMM and I love the "appear" to be seeing line.
Which brings me to this:
"The scientists used satellite observations of gravity change over the period April 2002 to January 2009 to calculate the rate of the ice loss in
East Antarctica's coastal regions"
Okay so they are not tracking the ice melting they are watching a gravity change and using that to say how much ice is melting? This sounds stupid!
Oh it still gets better:
"Climate change will cause a rise of at least 1 meter in sea levels by the end of this century, according to a review of scientific data by
environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet"
"The projection is in sharp contrast to a 2007 study by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said world sea levels could
increase 18-59 centimeters by 2100"
So the United Nations says it will take almost a hundred years to rise 18 to 59 centimeters, but this Clean Air-Cool Planet people know much more and
state a 1 meter rise in 10 years. So these two studies are way off from each other in both scale and time frame.
Who is wrong here?
The leaked e-mails show them covering up a cool down and stating they can not explain it. What?
I have read many articles stating that the ice cap reflects the suns heat back up into our atmosphere and warms the planet. These are the scientists
own words about the cap reflecting the heat.
Therefore, after the ice cap melts the planet will cool. I am guessing it will refreeze and that this is an ongoing natural occurance. However, the
uneven melting makes me think something underneath is melting the ice.
Nasa has sent planes there to map it yet they are not using any of that data they are watchimng for gravity fluctuations? Strange indeed!!
Since major corporations are in supply of the
majority of lawyers a court battle would be long and costly. They can do that very easy.
