I think it's a shame to conflate global warming with man made contributions, or assume them to be the primary driver. But beyond that I'm unsure how bringing in either one of those examples truly addresses what is being stated in the article, because among other things, global temperatures have only been recorded for a limited time. Beyond which, it may be natural for those shelfs to melt. It may be part of a natural cycle that occurs over expansive amounts of time that needs to happen, similar to how regular fires in the west were actually a way of limiting large scale forest fires that did not proliferate the way they do now until we began to suppress the more limited versions.
Beyond all that, the implications for science go beyond the scope of just this article. Some of the emails come across basically portraying people who don't agree with global warming as crooks, as well as show scientists marginalizing periodicals that don't adhere to a certain world view. When everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks. Furthermore, it's sad that scientists would fight alternative views with something other than the scientific process, which has been an accusation leveled at other branches.
Once upon a time, everybody though the sun revolved around the earth. Those who argued a minority position of heliocentrism were marginalized and punished; is it necessary for us to repeat those mistakes?