I've noticed both Rand [ http://www.transterrestrial.com/ ]
and Glenn [ http://www.instapundit.com/ ] have mentioned this story. Instapundit says:
"...Not sure what that means, but it's kind of interesting that this sort of thing remains subject to uncertainty."

Or said differently it's a bit surprising these kind of mistakes can be made. The good news is NASA corrected it quickly once they were shown that there was an error. And one should expect further review to be done.
Which points to a fundamental problem regarding climate science- there is a lack of precision and lack of robust correction process. In near term we probably won't get much improvement in terms of precision, but we could get significant improvement in the area the "peer review" type process.