...And he's just as dumb as he always is.
Granted, he's not the only dumb as a box of rocks idiot out there these days. You can always look at Charles Johnson who is so out of his depth it's really sort of sad.
In Charles' world when police bust someone for drugs and the suspect says "But I'm only holding it for a friend" we are to take the suspect at their word and just move on. (Really, he's stupid enough to be making this argument.) So, when all of the raw data for the climate models is "lost" after FOI requests are made of it, AND newly released emails reveal they planned to delete data if it was ever requested in the first place, Charles wants us to think we can simply take the word of these people when they say they didn't alter more than 5% of the data in the first place AND we are to take their word as gospel when they claim to have altered (in their words "improved") the data in a scientifically correct manner. Of course, the whole point of having the raw data is to have independent researchers check to see if the "improvements" are scientifically valid. Without the raw data the work of CRU is unverifiable, untestable, and not reproducible. In other words, it isn't science. If you have a problem with that, Chuck, you might want to check out astrology. It may be more your speed.