No significant changes in how the CRU functions for now, mostly to protect tens of millions in funding. I guess the CRU is too big to do wrong. Cooking data, trying to suppress other scientists papers, refusing to honor information requests all sound pretty wrong to me.
Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.
Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here."
It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking
