The UEA research group has been cleared by two independent British panels, the House of Commons, the University itself, Penn State, Nature editors, and the United Nations IPCC commission. UAE's research and conclusions continue to be supported by NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, NIWA, Canada AES and every other major climatology research group in the world. Now, you can try labeling NASA and NOAA corrupt organizations (like Limbaugh does), but if you keep following this trail of accusations far enough then you'll end up pointing back at yourself. And then you'll need to "spend some quality time behind bars for ... [having] perpetrated a number of obvious frauds".

Although this article esquire.com - marc morano is admittedly pop-media, it demonstrates that most of the fault here lies with reporting, not the science or even the scientists. The researchers at UEA have been doing the best job of measuring and analyzing that anyone can, yet when they are harassed by payed pundits and gadflys the objectivity of the media is completely lost. Even now that the researchers have been cleared of any professional wrongdoing, they are still being criticized (or apologized for) because they expressed frustration that their work was being misrepresented. If we should take away any message from this incident, it should be concern about how easily information can be corrupted in the public mind, even at times when clear public debate is critically important. Case in point: The Guardian is not the most balanced news outlet, and often has a sensationalist agenda of it's own.