A preliminary report into the East Anglia climatic research unit suggests that their data was on the up and up. The story is mostly failing to get the kind of attention I thought it wouldn't.
Some of the attention it has failed not to to get, however, has been kind of amusing. Iain Murray, for example, claims that the report is a "whitewash." (Bet you didn't see that coming.) But in support of that thesis, Murray (correctly) paraphrases Roger Pielke's point that "a broad reading of the report reveals an indictment of the state of climate science."
So it's a "whitewash" and an "indictment"? Riiiiight.
Murray's greedy appropriation of Pielke's remarks is more than just incoherent, though; it's dishonest - Pielke clearly disdains the "whitewash" claim as a "sideshow."
Defenders of CRU will no doubt paint the report . . . as a complete vindication of their arguments and those who have been critical will . . . call the report incomplete or a whitewash.
If you are going to quote someone as support in a blog post named "Climategate Whitewash," you should probably own up to the fact that your authority does not believe that the report is a whitewash.
On the other hand, maybe I'm being unfair - Murray did make that clear enough himself. If only by accident.
