We know that Muir Russell and his UEA chum Geoffrey Boulton failed to investigate most of the instances of perversion on the peer review process. We know that the instance they did investigate - the Soon and Baliunas affair - they failed to find out if CRU staff had contacted the journal involved. Instead they exonerated the CRU staff using the following evidence:
Knowing this, what can one say about Sir John's statement as follows?
The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion that there was no evidence of attempts to subvert the peer review process, and agrees that academics should not be criticised for commenting informally on academic papers, noting that constructive criticism and challenge is fundamental to ensuring a robust scientific approach.