"'No malpractice' by climate unit
The row surrounds e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia
There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.
This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit."
"We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever..."
UEA's vice chancellor Edward Acton said he welcomed the report.
"It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice," he said
This is the academic equivalent of using all-caps.
Why is it that the more definite they sound, and the more hysterical their denunciations of 'smears and allegations', the less credible they appear?