The man is making the same vague accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy that have been made for decades, yet which have never been substantiated despite several investigations. Moreover, he's a nuclear physicist and control systems designer/decision making expert. Not a meteorologist, not a climate expert. He's effectively no more an authority on AGW than you or I. This in itself justifies the claim of his "denialism".
Every investigation -- including the most recent one which sorted out "Climategate" -- showed that there was no evidence of making stuff up, no evidence of lying about results, no evidence of mixing and matching data to provide the desired outcome.
It is a few people in one sector of society hurling indiscriminate lumps of mud at another sector of society simply because that second group has discovered something the first group doesn't like. The big problem arises when that small first group manages to convince a decent chunk of everyone else that throwing mud is right.
It's plain bullshit, designed to cripple the other side of a serious issue, while never actually supporting their own side. So one is always defending from accusation, the other always attacking and making them. The only result is that nothing gets done about it, because nobody has the resources to do anything but attack or defend.
There have been investigations: none of them showed what the naysayers claimed they would. And yet the naysayers continued to claim they have evidence of the dishonesty. Which they never supply. Asking for more investigations is, to put it lightly, a feckin' stupid idea.
You say you don't know what's going on, yet are prepared to criticise those who evidently do know the story and are stating their position based on that knowledge, i.e. by calling out a fool on his foolishness. Sure that's a reasonable thing to do?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
