London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

The 160-page report did however find that the CRU scientists had failed to display "the proper degree of openness" when it came to dealing with public requests for information.

"They had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data that they were processing, about the stations that they were analyzing, so on," he said.

Except, that's a nice piece of spin on the situation. Are we going to be allowed to peer review their work or examine the "lost" original data yet?

Not that this is going to change anyone's opinion here, but...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07 ... tml?hpt=T1

I believe that the jury is still out on whether the science is accurate or not. All the article or I were trying to share was that this panel has determined that there wasn't any kind of liberal conspiracy to fake numbers to support their argument.

Nice predjudice there Khross. It isn't so much "hogwash" as it is un-verified.

absense of evidence is not evidence of absense

Lol. No it isn't. I have no evidence that there is a God. It is not evidence that there is not one however.

But yes, they need to open up their findings to peer review. I suspect that given this report and the various mounting pressures for that we will see that happen.

So the original information is still not available, but you continue to want to subscribe to it. Great I have a un-available study proving liberalism to psychotic behavior. You can not peer review it or look at the information, but trust me, its valid!

So the original information is still not available, but you continue to want to subscribe to it. Great I have a un-available study proving liberalism to psychotic behavior. You can not peer review it or look at the information, but trust me, its valid!

Can you show me where I said here that I subscribe to all the findings of this particular report? Yeah, didn't think so.

That was not aimed at you, but if you feel it was, oh well. But to those who believe that the institution in question was producing reliable scientific evidence. If you feel that way, then yes it was aimed at you.

Lol. No it isn't. I have no evidence that there is a God. It is not evidence that there is not one however.

Except, that's a nice piece of spin on the situation. Are we going to be allowed to peer review their work or examine the "lost" original data yet?

The Glade never fails to disappoint.

The Glade never fails to disappoint.