Champions of global warming alarmism are celebrating a newly released report that says that there was no evidence that those at East Anglia University whose emails were released were purposefully manipulating data and that there was no “evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

Yet the report wasn’t a total slam dunk for those at East Anglia University. As the WSJ reports:

But the report criticized the East Anglia climate scientists for “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.”

In particular, the report said, the researchers’ responses to “reasonable requests for information” by outside scientists “were unhelpful and defensive.”

It called an “iconic” chart the scientists constructed as evidence of man-made global warming “misleading,” saying the chart didn’t sufficiently explain the researchers’ methods. And the report concluded that the East Anglia researchers may have deleted emails “in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them.”

One question that people should ponder is why when the IPCC gets things wrong, is it always on the side of overstating the degree or potential harm from global warming? If this was just random error, it should go both directions. Sometimes they should understate them as well as overstate them.

The constant stream of errors from the global warming community – from the celebrated Al Gore to the IPCC reports – always go toward greater alarmism, which gives one the sense that this isn’t just science, it’s also politics. These guys want to find worst case scenarios. And for them it’s good business: never has climate science been a better, more prominent place to work than during the recent global warming scare.

And it’s not just the errors that make people skeptical-it’s the leap to demonize anyone who questions their logic or findings. It’s political hacks, but prominent scientists who raise questions about global warming forecasts or role that factors other than humans play in influencing the climate.

Maybe man is at the heart of rising temperatures. But it sure doesn’t seem like we know that for certain, since there is so much we don’t know about how the climate works and changes. And at this point, I-and I think many other Americans-just don’t trust the self proclaimed spokespeople for the scientific community (particularly when they are typically funneled through a blatantly political organization like the UN) to tell the full story.

And isn’t skepticism supposed to be a good thing in science?