re: #322 ethics

When met with non-peer-reviews questioning the science of GW, those who are proponents of GW are saying you need it. Now when there’s some serious questions on a major source, it’s fine.

The point is that there are almost zero peer-reviewed sources that contest AGW, with zillions that support it.

That doesn’t mean that this glacial melt prediction isn’t an error, or shouldn’t have been included. It definitely shouldn’t have, and it’s doubtful that such a specific conclusion would have passed peer-review. Nobody is saying that it’s okay to include errors, or that peer-reviewed science isn’t necessary in Western science. However, since there is a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific information about the melting of glaciers, it’s a little confusing why people think this error is significant. It doesn’t alter the state of the science at all.