‘Experts’ surprised at coastal ice thinning

British Antarctic Survey Con Artists are Surprised!

Remember FEWW Forecast?

Thought for the Day: A 2009 Forecast

The most widely used phrase by “scientists” in 2009: “We were completely surprised!”

But never mind the “science” because these con artists are expressing surprise at the extent of the Antarctica and Greenland coastal ice thinning to get more cash and condoms.

Having analyzed of millions of NASA satellite laser images, or so they claim, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Bristol University researchers say they have discovered that the biggest loss of ice occurred when glaciers accelerated during their descent into the sea.

[Say, how long does it take to analyze each picture? Nearest minute would do!]

The British Antarctic Survey’s Rothera base (undated photo). Source: brisbanetimes.com.au. Image may be subject to copyright.

“We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers across such large areas of coastline — it’s widespread and in some cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometers inland,” said the BAS lead con artist.

“We think that warm ocean currents reaching the coast and melting the glacier front is the most likely cause of faster glacier flow.”

“This kind of ice loss is so poorly understood that it remains the most unpredictable part of future sea level rise,” he rambled on.

The study reported 81 of 111 “fast-moving glaciers” in Greenland as thinning twice faster than the “slow-flowing ice sheets at the same altitude.

Meanwhile, another ‘scientist’ in the group was quoted as saying that [the study may not be worth the cost of flying a box of condoms to Antarctica because] “thinning of the ice in some areas could be caused by changes in snowfall, for instance, not the slide of ice toward the ocean.”

[This is the best of the British science, making two diametrically opposite propositions, and both in the same breath, or research paper, just to save face in case they were proven totally wrong.]

To save their well-paid jobs, they were quoted as saying that it was still too early to determine if the thinning had any effect on the sea level rises. [More money, time and free condoms are needed.]

Only if their study wasn’t so preposterous. Any more condoms anyone?

Related Links:

• Thought for the Day: A 2009 Forecast
• “We were completely surprised!”
• Antarctica base gets 16,500 condoms before darkness [Researching each other blind!]
• Hot? Try a dream job in a not-so-tropical location