UPDATE: Visitors from Eschaton might be interested in this post on tone trolling, Broderism and how to spot it.
The UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee has issued its report on the Climate Research Unit inquiry. In a statement issued with the report
"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."
Here are some links that go beyond the basic press release
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
Big City Lib has more
The full report is at deSmog Blog
The oral and written evidence is now available as a single Acrobat file
More at Climate Progress
Stoat will be chiming in when he gets out of the river
Real Climate has a discussion but more is anticipated
Policy Lass includes a comment from Yrs Truly
James Annan gleefully points out the mote in the committee's eye
Deep Climate lands on Graham Stringer's reading list
Richard Black makes some important points, which enrages the trolls.
Thanks to Helen Cotterill for the tip
Eli's general conclusion is that we should have aggressively submitted evidence to the Committee dealing with the way Prof. Jones and the CRU had been attacked for many years, and how the denialists have systematically distorted his and others work. The denialists did not make this mistake and their fulminations crept into the Science and Technology Committees report.
However, importantly, the basic AP and other news service, reports really hammer on the denialist campaign to vilify Phil Jones and that the science has been reaffirmed. Even Sky News follows that tack