This is a decent example of leading edge scientific reporting, restricting itself to new observations, and little interpretation. Its merits may be challenged with the claim that it cites the work of only one scientific team. But, the team has made firsthand reports of newly observed conditions in a remote area. Other sources are unlikely to exist. These reported conditions are extremely valuable to recognize, and may have profound implications, both for science and for society. If this team's preliminary response of the observations is correct, the discovery may be among the most important (and regrettable) in years. It's welcome to see an author (Steve Connor) resist any temptation to inject artificial "balance." The few ... More »

It's not longer possible to deny that climate change is occurring -- too much science confirms it; too many people understand the reality. Thus, politicians and special interests who have denied climate change are in an awkward position: how can they spin their longstanding refusal to act? How can they maintain their personal or political bias against action, in the face of so much irrefutable data? Their newest, most disingenous tactic is to pretend that it is unclear whether human activity causes climate change, or whether climate change may be "natural." They hope that by manufacturing doubt, and demanding "more study," they may be able to ignore the risk and the responsibility for a few more years. From Science (Vol. 306. ... More »

Unfortunately, there are individuals and political interests who wish such stories were not true. Thus, some will blithely contradict the basic premise, and even underlying facts, without acknowledging or comprehending the complexity of the topic. The story rates high in most categories precisely because the author does not waste space on such tangential objections by political and economic naysayers. Frankly, such opposing opinions are irrelevant to the story, primarily because they are not informed by real world data from the field.