The issue focused on a NASA scientist who had challenged an international team to show how much methane would be needed in the Earth's atmosphere to be matched to a natural solar flare to produce the observed impacts.


In the face of criticism that the study was flawed and said it was not scientific in nature, Science magazine published a correction on Wednesday saying its explanation of the conclusions was in line with what the study measured.


However, Science suggested there had been another problem: the study was peer-reviewed