I feel that, if this were the only article showing failures on the part of climate scientists, there would be no victory hooting.  However, every week there's a new story about these scientists employing suspicious science to arrive at more profitable [1] conclusions.  I don't know that victory hooting is necessary here, but a certain amount of "WTF?"ing is definitely called for.  Whether or not global warming is a real and man-made phenomenon (vs. a natural cycle or just overinflated numbers), it's important to call attention to the fact that someone is more or less pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.<p>I maintain though, as I always have, that the reduction of carbon dioxide waste is a POSITIVE aim as is anything seeking to minimize the effect of ourselves on our environment.  The only things I'm calling into question are the tactics currently being employed.  If this data-munging is a universal thing, I'd argue that the ends do not warrant the means.  This should be a scientific debate, not an emotional one (as it has become).<p>[1] I say profitable because it's hard for contrarians to get grant money as they are generally believed to be 'quacks'.