Public statements are necessarily dumbed down for the public, not because the public is stupid, but because scientific papers can be up to 6 pages of dense text. And even THAT isn’t enough to properly outline the assumptions and possible influences.

You complain about people calling you denialist and cranks, and yet you use equally offensive (but succinctly descriptive) words yourself.

I must correct your assertion about using offensive comments. Some of my comments may offend, but I try to direct them to words and actions and not to persons, as far as I can. The same cannot be said for the people I complain of.

Perhaps the following is why the Royal Society thought this PR piece was worth real money:
” The [SCAR] report found there has been little change in temperature over most of Antarctica, and sea ice has increased by 10 per cent in the last 30 years”.

Why would Antarctic sea ice increase so much during the very period the IPCC suggest was the warmest 30 years since instrumental records began? This is a scientific mystery worth bringing to the attention of the public – and that might well have been the true intention of the Society.

If I’ve got it pegged aright, this tends to disprove the well-known contention that “the Royal Society has gone from a learned institution to a trade union in only 30 years”.

“As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists … the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand.”

Perhaps the RS will reflect upon that last sentence.