Who is in denial now eh?

Face it, there is now a growing perception of a culture of corruption in this science, and now you've quoted from just one source, a friendly one to AGW at that, how convenient and how typical.

I note too that the report does not say there is no fraud, it says "they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct" that's a long way from "no fraud" isn't it.

It's exactly that sort of cleverness that makes this whole CRU thing smell bad.

There is no evidence it was a hack, it could have been an insider, it could also have been a mistake - that's never happened before has it? /sarc.

To sum up tthe email exchanges as robust scientific politics, when they clearly were trying to skew the peer review process, it may not be illegal, but it certainly not in the "spirit" of scientific openess is it.

Quoting peer review for Jones's data hardly gives one a warm feeling now does it?

Then there is the comments in the actual code, that's not easily put aside, you don't seem to even address that at all, selectively keeping to the emails.

You're clearly frustrated with this Geoff, it's bad luck you seem to be tied up in it.

You may not think the science or these scientists are discredited, but the perception out there says otherwise.

Only today the Australian newspaper published an article claiming a key point about Himalayan glaciers was a quote from aphone interview by a person who admits he is not a glacier expert - that sure helps that credibility stuff doesn't it?

Wow!

I am amazed.

Just how is it possible that any one, who can spin such a nice bunch of daisies, over such a stinking pile of cr4p, as climategate, has not been co-opted for Ruddies personal staff.

Such talents are surely wasted at the ANU.

Hang about, perhaps our unies are even more in need of these talents than Ruddies crook government.

Dr Davies,

Perhaps you can give me an example of a legitimate use of the word "trick" in conjunction with the word "hide" in regard to the display of data.

Or how it can ever be legitimate to threaten to destroy a data set rather than comply with a FOI request?

If the data set in question was covered by a licensing agreement and could not be disclosed there would be ample grounds for declining the FOI request. There would be no need to threaten to delete the data.

To pretend that the hacked emails do not point to hanky panky of the most egregious sort is to be in denial. Any scientist worthy of his position should be calling for an open and transparent enquiry into the affair. The enquiry must include a thorough review of ALL Phil Jones' and Michael Mann's publications.

Any outcome that leaves Phil Jones in his job is a cover-up.

Any future IPCC reports need to be based EXCLUSIVELY on data that is available to all.

If you seek to minimise this affair perhaps you too should be sacked.

NB:

I am not a climate change denier. I need no convincing of the dangers of continuing to pump greenhouses gases into the atmosphere

The emails do indeed suggest fraud. And it was evident there were major problems with the research culture at the UK Climate Research Unit before the emails were leaked.
Here I called for the resignation of scientists even before the emails are leaked:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/
And here I explain how the scientists themselves publically admit that the methodology they have been using may not be sound: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/
[And they can't even predict the weather with the UK Met office wrongly forecasting this last winter in the UK would be warmer than average - yet it has been freezing - the coldest for 30 years!]

"perception of a culture of corruption in this science.."

yes indeed, but as we all well know perception does not always line up with actual facts...

thanx again geoff, good article.

Having read the article, I then proceeded to peruse the comments. Yes. You know my old dead dad useta say that "Sometimes things get so bad that you can't help laughing".