What else would you expect, their livelyhoods depend on the farce continuing.

>The first official inquiry into Climategate has produced the first whitewash, as expected.
>http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/03/mps-climategate-report-published-whitewash-with-dissent/
>
>CRU is "criticized" for repeated violations of the FOIA but Professor Phil Jones, head of the unit, was cleared of dishonestly fiddling the data to strengthen his evidence.
>
>Of course examining the actual report and the selectively cited evidence reveals the Inquiry has ignored the obvious and glaring data manipulation of not just Jones but the CRU as a whole. The Inquiry further uses Jones' own explanation of "trick" and "hide the decline" as a "clever thing to do" rather than the substitution of inconvenient data that it was.
>
>Here's the report:
>http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hc-387-i-uea-final-embargoed-v2.pdf
>
>McCintyre has posted a bit on the ignored issues:
>http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
>
>and Graham Stringer dissent:
>http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/30/stringers-dissents-a-split-decision/
>
>Given the glaringly obviously bias of the members of the forthcoming Royal Society Panel's inquiry I will expect more of the same.