Krsqk,
If you are using 'information' from someone else then let this be a warning to you about taking sources uncritically. At the very least you ought to have more than one source for a claim before using it. I am not a 'professional scientist' by any stretch. I merely read publicly available books and articles at the 'popular' level. Yet I could instantly see the obvious distortions and omissions in those claims.
All of the points I made can be checked Online using a good search engine like Google. There are lots of science magazines and even some pretty decent technical references (like the Usenet Physics FAQ at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ) available. There are even some good references for common misunderstandings of scientific knowledge, like the Science Misconceptions Page at
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon.html And of course you can look things up at any reasonably well-stocked library.
Given how easy the access to vast quantities of detailed scientific information is these days, I cannot see how anyone could look up the depth of the icecap on Greenland and not also learn about the fact that it is constantly being renewed. So the depth of the lost plane in the ice proves nothing except the high rate of turnover. Either this is a
very over-eager partisan just grabbing 'facts' out of an encyclopedia and rushing to hurl them at the enemy, or this is a deliberate attempt at deception. The combination of all those distortions together makes it seem more likely to be the latter. I advise you to be very careful of the 'source' of these claims.
[ December 19, 2002, 16:30: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]