It's clear enough what the scientists tried to do with GPS, the southern boundary of Greenland, and the level of the bedrock of the boundary of Greenland.

There are amazing images of all of Greenland showing that nearly all of the Greenland bedrock is a big, deep bowl with most of the bowl actually significantly below sea level. The usual claim is that the ice on Greenland has been so heavy that it has pushed down the bedrock. 'Ats a 'lotsa icea'.

However, of course, given that ice is much less dense than rock, there are some issues, but let's set those aside.

Yes there are claims that the last ice age pushed down the bedrock over most of Canada and that the bedrock is still slowly rebounding.

The problem is the article (the one of this thread, not the article, I have not seen, given at the conference). The problem with the article of this thread is that it, the article, maybe JUST the ARTICLE, maybe not the scientific work, is just as I wrote succinctly, "BS". The problems with the article are just at the level of middle school data analysis.

The simplest criticism of the article is its use of "as high as" to try to characterize something about all of the bedrock of the boundary of southern Greenland.

The main cause of the problems with the article and the main source of the use of "as high as" is the author's approach via the usual of the newsies, drama. He's looking for drama. He's following the usual way, concentrate on extremes. I said this:

"Newsies go for drama; for that they like to emphasize the extreme cases, and that is what this author is doing."

For "as high as", I wrote:

"Moreover, the 'as high as' really means that there could have been just one location with 20 mm with all the other locations less."

In most objective terms, the article is BS because it never really said anything at all meaningful about the level of the bedrock on Greenland; it said nothing, nichts, nil, nada. Just read the article and read what I wrote; the article said NOTHING.

Look, let me put it to you this way: In the eighth grade there are two classes, A and B. Class A is on one side of the building and class B on the other side. Someone does an analysis of the heights of the students and finds that some of the students in class A are as much as 2 inches taller than they were last year and, since last year, grew by more than 1 inch more than some of the students in class B. What can we conclude from this, that students in class A grew more than those in class B? Heck no. Actually, its quite possible that the same statement would also be true with A and B interchanged.

What the article reported about the bedrock level is no better than this total BS about classes A and B.

In particular, the author never said anything to let us draw his conclusion that the bedrock in southern Greenland rose unusually quickly in year 2010.

Again, again, yet again, once again, the article reported the data on the bedrock levels so badly that it said nothing, nothing at all, nichts, nil, nada, about bedrock level changes. NOTHING. To see this, just read the F'g article or my post.

Again, over again, to explain clearly, once again, the problem was that the author went for drama instead of meaningful data analysis. DRAMA. He wanted drama. He wanted to grab people by the heart and the gut. It was emotion, all emotion, in this case totally meaningless emotion, and not reason, not even one gram of reason.

Again, the problem is at the level of middle school.

What might the article have done? How about:

"In year 2005, some high quality GPS receivers were placed at 30 locations scattered around the boundary of Greenland.

At each location, the altitude of the receiver at that location was noted in September of year 2005.

The following table shows the change in altitude (in mm) for each of the locations in September from the previous September for each of years 2006, 2007, ..., 2010.

In the next table we show for each year 2006, 2007, ..., 2010 the change averaged across the 20 locations in the southern 2/3rds of Greenland.

What we observe from this data is that, for the stations in the southern 2/3rds of Greenland, on average the increase in bedrock altitude was unusually high from September 2009 to September 2010.

A conjecture is that the cause of the unusually high increase is greater ice loss from higher temperatures from September, 2009 to September 2010."

But what is in the article is NOTHING like that, not similar, not the same, not nearly the same, etc.

Again, maybe there was some good data collection, but what the article wrote about the data is BS.

Why the drama? First, the media just wants to keep following their old business model of emphasizing drama. Second, in particular, because a big theme in the media is to ride a wave, mostly generated by and heavily reinforced by, the media, to have a 'story', a continuing 'story', a 'story' really easy to write about, a very dramatic story, about 'global warming' and, now, 'climate change'. They just sling the BS out there, whether there is good science or bad science, they just sling the BS the same. Because they want a dramatic 'story'. And it's all emotionalism with "as high as" and never rationalism. It's BS, and in total it's DANGEROUS.

I never mentioned AGW.

As I said, I call BS.

At C|NET there are claims that the global warming articles and readers posts supporting them are both paid for by organizations that want to convince the public that 'climate change' is a big problem and must be stopped.

'Get it' now?