As I understand things, even if it takes 10 million years to create the pattern that allows me to identify an error, it is still an error. Perhaps we are off by 100 years, perhaps by 100 million years, but when the article says that what was thought to be constant for the globe now has localized variations, and further more might not be at all correlated as the previous theory suggested, I think I am perfectly justified in saying that we do not know how old things are.
"I do not know" is a whole lot better than "I am going to believe something I know to be untrue just because you cannot offer a better theory" in my book.