In both their 2005 Science article and their 2006 BAMS article, the authors appear to double count data from 1994, but it may just be the result of repeated typographical errors in both journal
In both their 2005 Science
article and their 2006 BAMS
article, the authors appear to double count data from 1994, but it may just be the result of repeated
typographical errors in both journal
in both journals.