This serves as a litmus test for the report’s scientific credibility. A commitment to scientific integrity requires the authors to produce a point-by-point response to the expert comments, overseen by an independent review editor.
A refusal to do so would suggest that the report should be viewed as an advocacy piece rather than a scientific document, and its conclusions should be treated with caution.
Why does this article insist on pretending that the report was unintentionally wrong?
Presumably because you’d have to prove in court that there was intention.
This seems to be as close as they get:
iftheycouldread.gif