How was that debunked? From my understanding the actual handling of it was almost as bad as it's original inclusion. From my understanding, which may be wrong

How was that debunked? From my understanding the actual handling of it was almost as bad as it's original inclusion. From my understanding, which may be wrong, is that the number was pulled out of thin air. Later when this came to light I saw a lot of articles throw out the fact that other research showed that the glaciers may melt in 2350, which seemed disingenuous because it implies that the number was a typo and not just a complete fabrication. The majority of what constitutes "climate science" is not science, a scientist must bend over backwards to show the ways in which they may be wrong because they are after the truth. Climate science makes lots of claims that it cannot back up. How anyone thinks that they can understand multiple systems interacting that have different and extremely long and unobserved cycles is ridiculous. The data is not there for the claims that are being made, a lot of the claims are so general and into the future that their is no way to accurately test them. So what we have are a lot of people making predictions (this is good), from incomplete data (it's the best we have, this is also good), using models and simulations (good), but they do not disclose how fraught with errors everything is. Also, I wouldn't say anyone is a climate change denialist -- everyone knows the climate changes and continues to change. I'd say that those who truly have some understanding of complex systems respect how hard it is to understand them let alone predict their future states. Perhaps a lot of people on HN don't necessarily buy into the story because programmers create and work with complex systems on daily basis and realize how hard even their simple ones are. I also think skepticism is healthy.