From an official response to the CRU email incident, largely clearing the actions of climate scientists:
The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.
I'm not sure anything that was said in the report will placate the denier crowd, but this part here gives me hope. There are plenty of people out there who are well-experienced in cross-field statistical analysis that would love to have sit-downs with real data and provide a sounding board. Indeed, it's one of the founding purposes of my department.