I responded to this naive comment upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13177599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13177599), but the interpretation

I responded to this naive comment upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13177599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13177599), but the interpretation you give is simplistic -- see the q-and-a at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20... That q-and-a is a great reason why one should not seize on one obvious interpretation of a press release, out of context, as some kind of gotcha. You have to know the context about the limitations of the data, what it's really measuring, and what the dominant physics are.