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.
Yes, of course, but the questioning has been done, and the overall conclusions from the entire planet's climate scientists have held solid for the last 30 years. I doubt you want to question the scientific conclusion of the crude law of gravity, the time for questioning the basics of anthropogenic global warming has also passed.
Picking small errors in isolated papers is great, but don't forget the bigger picture.
(post is archived)