Probably because they aren’t willing to admit they’ve been stupid.
Give you an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you want to set the stage so that your company can collect on a large dollar value debt owed you by another company. You wish to do this with out bringing in the law ~ just nice and sweet and cheap.
You have several ways to approach this. You could send in your lawyers to talk to their lawyers. Or, you might ask if your "world's greatest experts in whatever" talk to their "experts" and trick it all out to make sure they weren't overpaying you, and vice versa.
So the "experts" meet face to face over the data, and they work it all out. Your company gets a bunch of money. The other guys get a lower price for future events of the same nature. No cops. No lawyers. No great immediate out of pocket expense.
Everybody goes away loving everybody when you can get that kind of solution.
Up until now we've been hitting the NONEXPERTS over the head with evidence that the database is flawed.
The "non-experts" are the politicians and foundation grants administrators who aren't really into this for the sake of the project and findings, but for the sense of "accomplishment" and "comity".
Clearly we need to move forward with this a bit differently. Recall if you will the time when the fellows who found the standard weather stations had not been maintained correctly did a head-on with Doc Hansen and the NASA experts ~ that's just last year. Hansen didn't argue ~ he pulled the data from those stations. It was pretty clear our side knew it's stuff, and Hansen knew they knew. The politicians still haven't caught up to this one, and some of them are in a huff.
Now we have "Climategate". We have some really good technical stuff to beat up on the technical people over there at GW central. First issue is "where's the data" ~ and none of them seem to know. I'd recommend we keep hitting on that one. It leaves the politicians out of the picture.
Another technical issue concerns the climate models ~ the coding doesn't work to predict current reality, or even the distant past. Was there fraud? Or, was someone an incompetent programmer.
I suggest we engage them with the "incompetent programmer" thesis ~ give them a "face saving" lie to let them arrive at the conclusion that fraud was committed (not by them, but on them).
It is necessary to achieve comity with this pack of criminals or they will become intransigent.
Probably because they are still trying to grab off total societal control and some trillions of dollars(2009 value) of resources. They will hang on to absurdity so long as it is possible to make money from it and so long as governments are trying to pass Cap&Trade and other scams like that there is value in hanging on to the most blatant and obvious of lies. And our government is frantically trying.