If I read your argument correctly, it seems you think this argument weakens the case for climate change. I think there's a danger in this method of trying to se

If I read your argument correctly, it seems you think this argument weakens the case for climate change. I think there's a danger in this method of trying to second guess science. I see a lot of the same form of argument from evolution deniers, too, and I always find it hard to understand. The point seems to be: here is a surprising fact that suddenly makes science less sure than you might have been led to think. The problem with it is that scientists see the exact same evidence as you do, and of course have already taken it into account. The whole point of science is to rake in as much evidence as possible and include it in the calculations. Those figures mentioned upthread, for scientist consensus on climate change? That's including facts like this, not ignoring them.