Not really because we can look at the whole conclusion and then look at why they are finishing with an emotional attachment.
"Incorporating the results from the ANDRILL cores with existing 18O in deep sea cores increases the accuracy of past ice volumes on Antarctica (figure 5).
Figure 5, The first graph (a) shows the stacked deep sea core benthic 18O and the second (b) shows the long term simulation of the total Antarctic ice volume, with the equivalent changes in global sea level. The results of the AND-1B are displayed at the bottom where, green represents grounded ice, blue floating ice shelf and yellow representing openocean. This also represented in the bottom diagram (c) where the same scale is smaller, the grey shading represents periods of super interglacials (Pollard & DeConto, 2009)."
ANDRILL’s core has shown clear evidence that WAIS can collapse rapidly as shown in figure 6.
[Anyone can look at the diagrams of ice extent on the paper as all seperate images and not wasting my time]
Figure 6, The left column represents 1.094 Million years (Myr) ago, middle 1.079 Myr ago and right column is today. a-c, Show the grounded ice elevations and floating ice thicknesses. d-f, surface ice speed. g-i, floating ice thickness and velocity. The black dot is the location of the AND-1B (Pollard & DeConto, 2009).
Results from ANDRILL show that WAIS had collapsed in the past when the temperature is 3°C warmer than today and CO₂ concentrations are 400ppm (Naish et al, 2009). This is most likely going to occur again by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007). Results from incorporating ANDRILL’s data into prediction models show similar collapses of the WAIS and 7 metre increases in sea levels (Pollard & DeConto, 2009). Collapses of the WAIS have been abrupt (~<500 years) in the past, thus could be just as abrupt today, but large uncertainties still remain (Naish et al., 2009). (Where you quoted from as a snippet)The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time.
So we have a more accurate determination of the past ice volumes of the WAIS, meaning this will give us a better resolution in the data when determining the temperature at the time. Then we have an intersting statement that the WAIS has collapsed rapidly in the past but the temperature was warmer and it was a natural event. Their own graphs and diagrams show that what we are seeing is not unsual or unprecedented.
Now why would they bring the human influence into a piece of work that does not directly research GHGs (or discuss them in depth from the samples) because it is based on 18O, changes in the composition of sediment layers, diatom species, Magnesium to Calcium and Barium to Aluminium ratios to give the overall picture, especially as the absolute last few words as a psychological hit, you might want to think about that a little bit more.