Wow, well there's some irrelevant nitpicking of a single published article from a completely biased source.
Clearly untrustworthy, and changes nothing about the that's been in place for the last 30 years.
Well it seems like a valid argument to me regardless of the whether the writer has a bias. Why dismiss it wholesale?
Its minor nature and irrelevance are good enough reason not to spend further time on it. If you were paid to reproduce the author's calculations, you might even agree that the rate of change should be revised down a little (not a much as suggested, I'm sure, and it's far more likely you'd convince yourself that the author is a lying shill). But then so what? The point is so miniscule anyone would be ashamed for wasting their time.
It changes essentially nothing about our , built on the collective knowledge and investigation of thousands of published papers. If you waste all your time reading propaganda, expect to be led astray from the bigger picture and brainwashed.
At the very least it's a good example of why conclusions, even those drawn by scientists from hard data, should be questioned.
(post is archived)