> Well, the "auditors" are called denialists

because the trait they have in common is denial of climate crisis, urgency, or climate change validity

> and attacked from many sides

because the majority of them either (a) lack relevant expertise, or (b) are blatantly on the payroll of fossil fuel & extraction businesses, or billionaires derived thereof. And so if you take a stance from a position where you appear to lack credibility or objectivity, and you do it repeatedly, and because the stakes are indeed huge and world-wide, you're going to be attacked. fair enough.

> even though they are the only ones who publish full source code, push for raw data release and actually try to replicate results

utter bullshit and you know it

> and actually try to replicate results. We are making $100T decisions on the basis of $1M papers and closed datasets.

hint: the existing "$100T" world economy is already the result of the combined actions of a bunch of people working from $1M papers and closed datasets. When BP decided to do the Maconda well and Deepwater Horizon, and decided how they did it, and weighed the risks/rewards, do you think they shared the data with the whole world beforehand and let us all submit our vote on whether to do it and precisely how to do it? Hell no. Repeat this pattern ad nauseum across the entire world economy, every day, 24/7. Except if BP makes an oopsie with Maconda the worst-case downside is ruining merely the entire Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and fishing/tourism industry, perhaps for only 30 years, maybe -- worstcase. But in the case of climate change, the worst-case downside scenario is fucking up the entire Earth, for everybody, potentially irreversibly. That's bad. That's really fucking bad. And you're right we want the science on it to be good. But we also want to make sure that it's only people with relevant expertise who are making the recommendations, and not people with clear financial incentives to keep their heads buried in the sand until it's too late. You can be skeptical all you want about a doctor's recommendation, but if given a choice between following the advice of a doctor, or a crazy old lady across the street, I know who I'm sticking with. And we're not even talking about only relying on one particular individual doctor, but on the consensus view of a large majority of practicing, experienced doctors.

For a related anecdote: I've lost track of how many weather records I've heard broken in the last few years. And I've lived in Colorado most of my life, and am personally witnessing some of the weirdest weather patterns I've seen in just the last year and a half. We had about 3 days of nearly constant rain last year -- this is in arid sunny Colorado -- it flooded a basement room because the ground was so saturated. I've witnessed many weird days with super strong winds and unusually colored skies, winds reminiscent of downtown Chicago. Record wildfires. Record tornado touchdowns and devastation. Hurricanes. Iceberg melting and ice shelf collapsing/shrinkage. Is it all just a coincidence? Just a temporary blip and will go back to normal in a few years all by itself? Maybe. Is that the smart bet to make? Because that's what we'll be doing. Making a bet. With the entire planet, all our our cities (especially coastal cities) and ecosystems AND economy, all at stake. I'd rather bet on the science folks than the fossil money folks.