We (Amazon skeptics) have been proven right in many many counts of our Amazongate, and post-Amazongate analysis. And let me remind you - there are not a lot of Amazon skeptics out there...
1) Re the discrepancy - reconciliation needed between the remote sensing and field data
2) The stupid warmist blogs never understood the importance of Samanta and Saleska et al.
3) Predicted why RealClimate had to be cited in the literature
4) Some of our skeptical friends never understood (or refused to understand) the confusion sowed by Saleska et al into the warmist savanna dogma
Look at the Nature article - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100720/pdf/466423a.pdf
Consider point (3). A RealClimate blog post, one with no substance, has been 'cited' in a review paper. This is now cited by a Nature
item, to advance the case that remote sensing data and conclusions are inherently troublesome. Scientist Asner, now suggests that a new satellite due to be launched by NASA in 2020 will be the only one to resolve the issue. My conclusion on what Nature mag is trying to say, from this spin - the relevance of remote sensing data can be put away from a good amount of time.