Double Standards Better Than No Standards at All?

If some people didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. Andrew Orlowski in The Register:

"Analysis Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, which began with goodwill from all corners of the climate debate, has made a series of bold announcements (without benefit of peer review) to the effect that global warming is definitely serious and definitely caused by humans."

(emphasis mine). Just a few paragraphs later:

"The second comment is worth taking the time to read, as new research using a much more comprehensive classification system puts the lack of rigour in dealing with the UHI effect in the spotlight. BEST appears to replicate the lack of rigour, and worse, appears not to care overmuch."

That "new research," of course, is also not peer reviewed, and it has quickly been found to have serious flaws, as the co-authors now admit. (Somehow, though, it was good enough to be presented as Senate testimony.)

Why do people make it so easy?