New York Times:

A British panel issued a sweeping exoneration on Wednesday of scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate, saying it found no evidence that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
The researcher at the center of the controversy, a leading climatologist named Phil Jones, was immediately reinstated to a job resembling his old one at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. That unit, often referred to by its initials, has played a leading role in efforts to understand the earth’s past climate.
Embarrassing e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists were stolen in November and posted to the Internet, leading to a deluge of accusations from climate change skeptics as well as admissions from some of the scientists that they had been guilty of poor behavior.
But were they, as the skeptics charged, guilty of scientific misconduct?
“On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” said the new review, led by Muir Russell, a leading British civil servant and educator.
The Russell panel also found little reason to question the advice the scientists had given to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that produces a major review of the science of global warming every few years. The new report said that “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the I.P.C.C. assessments.”

The rest here.

Judging by this post from July 1, James Delingpole is likely not surprised:

Does the shamelessness of the noisome Michael Mann and his Hockey Team know no bounds?
(No. Ed)
Not content with the two whitewash inquiries into Climategate so far, Mann and his Hockey Team (though mainly Mann, probably — the writing is very much in his half-wheedling, half-blustering style) have written to the chairman of the third and final inquiry Sir Muir Russell to “express some serious concerns” and to “provide specific suggestions” as to what his conclusions might be.
Here is a summary of what they urge in the letter, which you can read in full at Bishop Hill. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)
1. There should be a cosy arrangement where corrupt, parti-pris scientists should be free to carry on behaving as badly as they like without any risk of their skulduggery being exposed by awkward public investigations. Private emails in which, say, they gloat about the deaths of climate sceptics, fantasise about physical violence against sceptics, plot how to misuse public funds, plot how to discredit scientists who legitimately disagree with them, plot how to shut down journals which don’t act as their amen corner, etc, should remain private.
2. The Muir Russell inquiry should continue to promulgate the great Climate Change lie.
“We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.”
3. Don’t listen to McIntyre and McKitrick because they know their stuff, they rumbled us twice with the Hockey Stick and we would much prefer it if you just accept that everything we tell you is true.
“Not all the evidence submitted to the Independent Climate Change Emails Review (ICCER) comes from parties with genuine interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence.”
4. Feel sorry for us. We are the victims in all this. Sob. Sniff. Now where did we put that onion?
“We hope you are able to acknowledge and take into account the intense campaign of harassment that has been directed at CRU and other climate scientists.”
For me it’s this last one that takes the biscuit. Really, the most disgusting thing of all to emerge from the Climategate emails was the way Michael Mann and his Hockey Team bullied any scientists who disagreed with them, effectively seeking to deny them a livelihood by having them shut out of the peer review process. Good decent men have had their careers stymied or even ruined by Mann’s bully mob. How dare they have the gall to complain when these activities are publicly exposed?