...by the UK Gov, in their official Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The short version: CRU's science is solid, but there are still some issues re the prompt handling of FOIA requests. The longer version is here. My favourite bit:
13. Openness and transparency should be the presumption. That said, there are a number of good reasons why it is not always possible or appropriate to make data available immediately or even at all. In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data (although there is the question of whether they could have gone back to national meteorological societies to get permission to release data).
And another favourite bit:
The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
15. We agree with the Committee’s comments on the rights of scientists to comment informally on academic papers, noting that the scientific method relies on constructive challenge. We also note that the Muir Russell Review team investigated CRU scientists’ involvements in peer review, and concluded that none of the allegations investigated represented subversion of the peer-review process, nor an unreasonable attempt to influence the editorial policy of journals.
...which kind of segues into my next topic, because the Gaurdian's Fred Pearce thinks, wrongly, that CRU was "using underhand tactics to silence their critics". He's also calling for the head of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) chairman Rajendra Pachauri. You can read his arguments through the link above. I'm more sympathetic to the position of the Friends of the Earth:
However, [the FoE] warned that there was a real danger that if Pachauri is perceived to have been forced to stand down, then climate sceptics will call for the scalp of every subsequent chair and the position will be discredited for good.
So might journalists like Fred Pearce. In fact, since journalism feeds upon conflict (or its appearance), you can bet on it.