Shouldn't that be the real ho's in ckimate science?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
The real holes in climate science
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1001...l/463284a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf

"The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to
climate-change denialists. Amid the more than 1,000 messages were several
controversial comments that — taken out of context — seemingly indicate
that climate scientists have been hiding a mound of dirty laundry from the
public.

"A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a
sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that
challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the incident
provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any active field of
inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding of climate
science. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate
climate science.