MapMaster:

If by "better" systems you mean "better looking" systems, that's exactly why science is so much more important than simple appearances. To some extent, classification/non-classification of a system that far out is often a guessing game because of the lack of surface observations and/or flight recon and/or ship observations. However, relying on the "look" of a system is far more unscientific than relying on what NHC relied on to classify Irene: not merely the look, but also Dvorak, Quickscat, etc. As we see from time to time, systems may look very much like tropical cyclones, but recon flights or surface observations reveal they are not; and sometimes systems do not look like tropical cyclones, but recon flights or surface data (e.g., reports from ships or islands) reveal that they are.

Based on the objective data - again, e.g., Dvorak, Quickscat - it's hard to argue that this wasn't at some time at least a depression. And although deciding when/if to upgrade to Irene was a tough call, a good argument can be made that the NHC should've upgraded EARLIER, when Dvorak and Quickscat arguably supported the existence of a tropical storm.

You might have cause to argue against the NHC's classifications from time to time, but I don't think science is on your side in arguing that Irene was NEVER a tropical storm (or depression).

-Brad