Bume is trying to be fair and balanced. But that is not what we do in science. We don't give a fair and balanced hearing of Genesis creation or creation science or extra terrestrial creationism, simply because they conflict with all the observations and measurements we make as scientists. If one wants to argue that our observations and measurements are accurate but are wrong because of a mysterious factor that only a handful of "scientists" in Sevastopol understand, then they should move to Sevastopol and join the anointed clan.
The question was really more about definitions than fairness. So feel free to call them bad scientists, misguided scientists, junk scientists, whatever, I'm ok with that. But if there's some dividing line that supposedly clearly defines them as not scientists at all despite them working with such titles in a university etc. I would simply like to know what such definition can be.
So all I'm saying is that if GeoResonance says they have that many scientists working on this stuff, in my opinion that can very well be true. But it doesn't mean they are any good or that the "science" they do makes any sense.
This is really a sidetrack but I'm just objecting such strong artificial divisions on concepts that are hard to define anyways. For example, I have my master's degree and I'm reading scientific papers on a daily basis in relation to my work, and doing stuff that would be likely called science or research if I was in a university doing it. But as I'm not, it's not usually called that. So it's mostly a matter of location and job title in this case.
Also in a more general sense a good debunking is just that much stronger if it doesn't contain claims that can't be proven or properly defined as then it becomes the sort of argument were all sides are exaggerating and telling half-truths and as a result it's hard to say who to trust.