I think the parent post was saying that the "revisionists" like to pick out weak points in one particular small result, and try to unfairly imply that all of th

I think the parent post was saying that the "revisionists" like to pick out weak points in one particular small result, and try to unfairly imply that all of the larger results in the field must be wrong, as well, without touching on any of the data or arguments in support of those results. This is what happens in the evolution debate on a regular basis: someone comes up with some minor technical complaint about peppered moth observation, spends a long time debating it, and then declares that evolution is "in controversy" despite the fact that even if their complaints were valid, there are thousands of other pieces of evidence in favor of the larger theory. I don't know enough about global warming to know if its critics are merely hacking away at a weak sapling to draw our attention away from the dense forest that they can't cut their way through. But I know that tactic has been applied in the past, so I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder. Scientists tend to get caught up arguing over whatever particular claim is being criticized, but I think in this situation, it would serve the climate scientists well to point the public eye towards less vulnerable data and claims, if they're out there...