Article explains several of the controversial statements in scientists e-mails hacked by climate skeptics. The article doesn't go far enough in analyzing why the scientists used the tone and terms, nor does it give enough emphasis to the significance of the exoneration. By saying that "mainstream science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed," it implies the science itself may still be in question. Rather, it is more the tone and attitude of some of the scientists, NOT the science, that was criticized by the panel. More could be said about why the scientists are highlighting the negative impacts of climate change. It would also be interesting to dig deeper into who is behind the drive to discredit the science and what ... More »

This article is too superficial to represent good journalism on this subject. It is reasonably well-balanced, however the reader is left with a poor understanding of the issues. The headline is especially misleading, because "clear" would seem to indicate that the British panel was not critical of the scientists involved, which is not true. Too much of a whitewash to be taken seriously.

Though the writeup seems a bit overly deferential to the deniers, the basic story survives to say that global climate change in human caused, and the science is valid.

This news report is good journalism. The author provides quotes from several scientists who are critical of the IPCC and the East Anglia CRU, as well as defenders. The one serious flaw is that the bigger issues raised by Climategate are not addressed: the badly flawed data sets relied on for climate modeling and the poor computing system used at the CRU.