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 their ties are to Big Oil. The scrutiny seems to be mostly on the scientists when, given what's at stake, a second look at the climate skeptics may have given more breadth and depth to the article.