Lifted from the Weasel King

[james_davis_nicoll]

If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-Rogoff made, well, all I can hope is that future historians note that one of the core empirical points providing the intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity in the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel."

Comments

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

'...There isn't any controversy about "sea level is increasing"....'

You sound exactly like a creationist.

People who care more about truth than their religion, on the other hand, do not claim that there's nothing to discuss.

[dbdatvic.livejournal.com]

It's the game of Nomic where controversy can be legally created by the insistence of just one of the players without any actual data, not the fabric of science. Discussion's been had; the conclusions that were reached include "sea level is increasing", and not on the logical scale of "I've been to Ancient Greece! See, look at this grape!" ((c) F.T.).

People who don't LIKE what the conclusion says are welcome to find their own data to add to what we got, and try to get the whole mess to agree with a different conclusion. But they don't get to +ignore+ portions of what we got and say "Look only at this subset of the data! This proves our conclusion!".

tl;dr - Discussion is ongoing. Nothing's tilting the conclusion away from "sea level is rising" OR from "sea level has already risen". Some people don't like that and are very loud about not liking it.

--Dave