With one highly revelatory exception of which I'm aware, this is an excellent, sober review; wouldn't it be great if everyone engaged in the hysterics over the myriad of issues entailed in AGW ("anthropogenic global warming") could adopt such a calm and reasoned approach?
But the single exception alluded to, above, is indicative of why this is almost completely impossible, in the current climate (as it were) surrounding the research and its uses and misuses: the reviewer alludes to "the widely-publicized 'climategate' fraud." Ironically, the only "fraud" associated with the so-called "climategate" incident was that perpetrated by the original e-mail leakers and by the rightwing publicists who blew them up into an apparent indictment of some (actually, as far as they were concerned, all) of the climate scientists. No fewer than five (5) different independent investigations have completely cleared the researchers involved, unequivocally and unambiguously demonstrating that (much as with the equally debunked and discredited James O'Keefe videos purporting to show ACORN staffers telling a "pimp" and his "ho" how to operate their illegal & immoral "business"), when the apparently-incriminating e-mail selections were shown in their entirety, and in full context, there was no funny-business of any kind going on. Repeat: there was Kelvin-zero (ie, absolute zero) chicanery, fraud, misrepresentation, massaging of data, etc. The data that the AGW-deniers accused the researchers of hiding from public view and deleting, were all available, and all presented. The use in one or more e-mails of the apparently-sleazoid term "trick" (supposedly in reference to selective and dishonest manipulation of data) was demonstrated to be exactly what the researchers had said from the beginning: a term of art widely used in the fields of science, math, engineering, and, for that matter, plumbing, carpentry, and cooking, for entirely-appropriate problem-solving mechanisms.*
The reports of the various investigations clearing the researchers both of any wrongdoing, and of any intent at wrongdoing, were released as early as December of '09, and the last was published on July 7 '10, the day before the posting date of the review above -- yet the review makes no mention of any of them.
This is *not* at all to the discredit of the reviewer, whose temperate wording makes it clear that he is making an obvious effort to treat the work on this controversial subject with the seriousness it warrants. (This is also why I gave it a "helpful" vote despite everything I'm saying about the error involved.)
It is, instead, representative of the media environment in which Americans have had to operate for at least two or three decades now -- one in which made-up controversies, often funded & promoted by the political and corporate powers at stake, are given immense amounts of time and attention, always with highly inflammatory language; but the inevitable debunking and refutation (or should that be "refudiation"?) of the initial claims are found on page B21 of the same papers that front-paged the initial accusations... if they get any mention at all. As any systems analyst will concur: "garbage in, garbage out." It's not the reviewer's fault that the "climategate" accusations were top-of-the-hour, leading stories on every news program (all the "driveby," "dinosaur," "alphabet," "mess media," whatever you want to call them), not just Fox -- but that the debunking of same came and went with nary a squeak, if you weren't explicitly seeking such info.
My first line referred to the "one... exception *of which I'm aware*." I strongly suspect that everything I know to be true about the "climategate" scam is also true about the imputation of fraud to the IPCC report, and to the "hockey stick" graph and theory. On that one, however, I don't myself know what the current understanding is, nor whether the charges that the IPCC report includes fraudulent, or even just incorrect, uses of data, have been upheld, discredited, or what. Accordingly, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
*for sources, google "climategate retraction" (about 340,000 hits) or "climategate debunked" (about 28,000 hits); in both cases, multitudes of sources will be found that can't be written off as run by, or "in the tank" for, liberals, tree-huggers, socialists, communists, Islamofascists, anti-colonialist Kenyans (or their offspring), or DFHs.
And remember what they said in the midst of Watergate: "follow the money." Who has more money riding on, and more to burn on, these things: a bunch of tinpot 3rd-world countries and envirocrazies, or ExxonMobil, hmm?