While searching for the article in the other thread, I figured I'd have a look at the Antarctic and see what was going on --> The articles are all old, but there.

Essentially, they could all be summed up to this:

World Climate Report Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job?

As you've probably noticed, I posted the Arctic ice topic/article in another, but similar thread; what I want to know from this article is this:

Why is it that when a group of scientists discover that ice is melting in the Arctic, nobody looks one way or another and everyone just assumes it's all Global Warming (and nothing else), but when they realize that they cannot keep saying that ice is melting in the Antarctic, there is instantly an explanation for it, in "canon" with AGW theory? (ie: more snowfall due to hotter oceans - which is a crock of ****, IMHO; it takes a little more than a wee bit of snow to produce a noticeable growth in Antarctica and it certainly takes a little bit more than a couple fraction-of-degrees to increase evaporation)

i think that Antarctic is for new people to live,,
couse our earth is exhausted.

That won't work. It's much too cold there to support human life for very long. Only Eskimos would dare live there long term.

when all the ice melted.. become warm,,,
we can live there then~

The above statement is overstated and misleading, and draws a false inference from an incomplete and presumably a priori, or agenda-driven, examination of the available data. The anonymously authored 2005 blog from which you got your information fails to acknowledge, for whatever reason, the most important fact about the Earth's lower ice cap: while it is true that Antarctica's larger eastern ice sheet is gaining in mass, its western sheet is being reduced at a greater rate. Thus, the net effect in that region is one of shrinkage, just as we observe in the Arctic. See this thread for more detail.

Apologies. It would seem my sources are incorrect or outdated? The latest articles that have crossed my path were for Antarctic growth, so I suppose there was something of presumption going into this thread.

That said, this thread was still intended more to raise questions --> While I'd be certainly hesitant to challenge NASA's conclusions, my question remains:


Why do I get the impression that regardless what the data says, the conclusion has already been written?

• One moment the ice is melting --> Everyone is freaking out.
• The next moment the ice is not melting --> Don't worry, though, because sea temperatures have skyrocketed by a billion degrees, causing more snow, therefore causing ice growth. ("climatologists" and AGW extremists pretend they actually predicted it) Everyone is freaking out even more.
• The next moment the ice is melting again --> Everyone continues to freak out.

The point is, if everyone is being so objective on this subject, why is there always an instant explanation that somehow makes things just as bad, if not worse than they were before, whenever there is any data or claim that goes in the opposite direction?