Last December, the University of East Anglia's opened two investigations of the "scandal" arising from hacked e-mails from their Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The Oxburgh panel released its findings in April, exonerating the science at the CRU. Today, the Russell panel released its findings, a nearly complete exoneration of the scientists involved.
Key findings:
we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
In other words, no fraud, no fakery, and no data manipulation.
we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
In other words, no "gaming the system" to achieve a pre-determined result.
But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness
In other words, they should have posted their data online, and sooner than they did -- which might have mitigated the impact of the non-scandal.
This is the second UEA study of "climategate." An earlier examination by Lord Oxburgh had examined the science of CRU itself, and had determined that the research had been, in Lord Oxburgh's words, "squeaky clean."
All that is in addition to two separate studies by Penn State University of researcher Michael Mann. The first study exonerated Mann of the most serious charges of data falsification and destroying evidence. But it did not have enough evidence to draw a conclusion on one allegation (that he conducted his research improperly), and recommended further study. The second study examined this final question in detail, and also exonerated Dr. Mann.
Expect to see news of this in George Will's column on the 12th of Never.