I've been struck by a couple of the environment correspondents' reviews of 2010, particularly as regards Climategate and the impact of my own GWPF report on the inquiries.
For example, when the report was issued, the contents, which to my mind show pretty conclusively that the Oxburgh and Russell reviews were whitewashes, were reported by the Telegraph's Louise Gray without disputing either the facts or my analysis. One could see her article as an attempt to divert attention away from my principal evidence, but there was no case that the facts were contested.
It was surprising then to see that in her review of 2010, Louise reports as follows:
Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), claimed to have done nothing wrong. But it took three reviews for him to clear his name of any scientific wrong doing. However UEA was criticised for failing to share information correctly.
... a summary that seems to fly in the face of her own headline back in September, that "doubt remains over Climategate".
It was a similar story in the Guardian, with the paper not disputing the findings in my report at the time, but now telling its readers
...four separate inquiries completed in 2010 cleared professor Phil Jones, head of East Anglia university's Climatic research unit, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Instead, questions were levelled at the way in which they responded to requests for information
It's almost as if the report is being airbrushed out of history.