the ocean current data, that uncertainty was huge - casting severe doubt on the reality of any change. Worse still, the NOC team had made a basic mistake in their sums, making their data seem more precise than they were.

Amazed that this has been missed by Nature's supposedly rigorous referees, one climate expert, Prof Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratories, wrote a formal letter to the journal pointing out the error; it was never published. Now Prof Chylek has gone public with his concern that Nature is more interested in getting media coverage than publishing reliable science.

In the current issue of Physics Today, he points out the basic errors in the NOC paper, and then reveals a telling detail. In its original form, the title of the paper had included a question-mark, highlighting the uncertainty of the conclusion. By the

In its original form, the title of the paper had included a question-mark

time it was printed, the question- mark had vanished.

The NOC team has confirmed that Nature's editors suggested cutting the question-mark, but insist they were happy to do so.

Both may now be rueing their foray into tabloidesque certainty. New research - gleefully reported recently in Science, Nature's US-based deadly rival - strongly suggests the Atlantic current hasn't changed at all.

In a Channel 4 documentary to be screened tonight, scientists sceptical of man-made climate change warn of the economic risks of precipitate action over global warming. Hardly less worrying is a potential collapse of confidence in the scientific community, if its leading journals turn out to have preferred spurious certainty over judicious doubt.