[asgard1024]

> Well, there are a certain number of explicit and implicit caveats that don't make it into the made-it-to-the-top-of-HN pretty graph.

They're not supposed to. These are supposed to be caught by peer review. If you believe Nature, then you should believe Science, too (I am talking about journals here :-)).

BTW, they explicitly discuss the possibility of "missing" temperature peaks in the RC blogpost.

[FrojoS]

How many results published in Nature turned out to be wrong later?

(I don't know the answer, but I heard the number is quite high.)