The paper in science concluding that the icecap in the bulk of Greenland grows by 2.5 inches per year was published after this article was written.
Climate modeller William Connolley - the colleague who believed that the Arctic Sun could melt 30 meters of ice layer per day - has been trying to run an after school club despite the thicket of government regulations. William failed while his shy and conservative friend Ross succeeded. William thus came close to being converted to the values of entrepreneurship...
And suddenly, indeed, he realized that he did not want to have anything to do with the sourballs who generate piles of biased data whose only purpose is a political one, namely to further thicken the thicket of government and international regulations that are annoying already today. (Yes, the letters "thick" will appear many times in this text.) Their only goal is to make life unbearable for ExxonMobil, CocaCola, McDonald's, Microsoft, all other corporations, Luboš Motl, all other people who like freedom, and for William Connolley's after school club. :-)
Be sure that the degree of regulation in Great Britain is much more modest than in most places in the world! William Connolley and his famous after school club would really suffer elsewhere; William is a poor conservative and/or libertarian guy who has been intellectually and financially raped by environmental activists who forced him to change into a leftwinger.
So it may be him who started a refreshing wave of more balanced data. For example, CNN explains that the icecap of Greenland is crucial for the debates about the future catastrophes caused by global warming because once this three-kilometer-thick icecap melts, the sea level will rise by 7 meters. This will happen, as the global warming scientists argue, by Christmas 4005. Good bye, New York City, Boston, Bangkok, and other cities. Okay, we have heard this science already. ;-)
Surprisingly, CNN admitted in the article #1 in their Science & Space section that the Greenland's icecap actually grows by 5 centimeters every year; linear extrapolation puts the destruction of the New York City's Downtown to Christmas 60,000 years before Christ. You may think that I would like such an article. But it is so terribly illogical that I just can't like it. It starts by saying that there were "wide predictions of a thaw". However, five paragraphs later, it is announced that "they said that the thickening is consistent with theories of global warming".
I don't need to explain you that there could really have been no "scientific predictions" of a thaw - something that had a 50% probability to occur and something that eventually did not occur - that would deserve this label - just stupid political proclamations, worthless guesses, wishful thinking, and emotions.
You see that these two sentences about the predictions of the "consensus theories" contradict each other - unless you imagine that most of the predictions that are being made contradict the "theory of global warming" whatever this bizarre combination of words means in this context.
Obviously, many people have made wrong "predictions". It's not a disaster but it is a good enough opportunity to learn who has made the wrong predictions that the Greenland's icecap should retreat, and not to trust these people in the future.
Be sure that empty heads like those in the eco-terrorist organization called NRDC (or, using the terminology of Chrichton's book, NERF - whose boss is Nick Drake, the brother of Frank Drake whose semi-scientific equation indirectly led to "global warming") are not the only examples. Other examples include Bill Clinton - infected by Al Gore - who just told 5000 people in Canada that "The real danger is the ice cap in Greenland is melting." And yes, there are many in the scientific community.
You can't get an "A" for both contradictory types of a prediction. I am sure that many of those "predictors" had teachers who allowed them to pass the high school exams via the answers "maybe yes, maybe no, I want an A anyway", but the readers of The Reference Frame should be a bit more strict.
There are many other inconsistencies in the article. In the middle of the text, they say that the thickening could be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland but no data can support this statement. Nevertheless, towards the end, they ventilate the opinion of other authors who argue that "Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea level rise" which seems to contradict all other justified facts mentioned in this article. I have not seen the article cited by CNN but it seems to be a work of pure fiction.
After all, Thor Karlstom from the U.S. Geological Survey predicts a new ice age in which ice will cover all of Canada. :-)