>Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms, for many of the global temperature series the details are obscure and it has proved difficult for outsiders to determine whether they are valid and applied consistently.

>In order to try to provide some clarity on the scientific issues, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited a panel of experts to investigate and report on these controversies.

Maybe it's just me, but I read these combined not as "Let's do a proper review of the methodology", but as "it seems that you are all dense, so we are assembling a panel to explain it to you in small words without reviewing the accepted wisdom on the matter".

That would be a shame. I think that people are slinging science fast and shallow on both sides of the debate, partly because people tend to internalize their opinion as a pillar of their identity (see: The Greens party in most western nations), and partly because there are financial interests betting on both sides of the debate, and they are all providing generous "research support".

A proper review of this significant point is very important, and it sounds like it's off to a biased start.