The paragraph quoted is making a point about how to effectively present and communicate scientific topics, not ascribing dependability.

Indeed, the entire article is a systematic rebuttal of ivmmeta's claims. Rebuttals are more convincing if you treat the topic in good faith rather than assuming fraud from the outset.

I don't understand how you can see this as "reckless beyond words" when it seems like exactly the sort of systematic analysis that we need more of.