re: #607 SixDegrees

As far as I know, Walter has never made any claim that the various foibles of the IPCC or the CRU constitute any sort of evidence disproving AGW.

But both organizations need to overhaul their processes. Which appear to suck on a number of levels. And that suckiness aids critics by providing them with bushels of low-hanging fruit.

It’s not possible for an organization run by human beings to be perfect. There are always going to be mistakes. And the climatology community has very clearly admitted as such, and clearly said they need to improve these areas.

But what’s really going on here is that these “critics” are scouring through every sentence written by climatologists, looking for anything at all that they can spin, distort, or exaggerate into a huge scandal. It wouldn’t matter whether the IPCC reports were 99.99999% perfect, these people would still find fodder for their scandal-making — it’s what the denial community does.

And yes, there IS a denial community, well-funded and politically powerful. They use dishonest tactics to do their work, smear excellent scientists, and harass people like the CRU scientists with constant frivolous demands for data through FOIA requests.