There is what purports to be a new history of Climategate at the US website, Mother Jones. It's not too bad, considering the source, but there are some problems.
For example, the standard line about the NAS panel's review of paleoclimate is repeated. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any self respect can continue to pretend that the other paleo studies are not undermined by their use of bristlecones (plus Yamal et al). This is such a simple issue that it does rather shred a journalist's credibility if they feign ignorance of it. The author Kate Sheppard blagged a copy of HSI from the publisher, so she knows it's a problem. I wonder why she didn't mention it?
There are a few other things too. Like this:
So how much of a nuisance was McIntyre? Consider his attempts to procure the crucial global temperature data sets that are jointly held by the CRU and the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre . McIntyre dogged the CRU for access to them for years, a campaign that escalated over the course of 2009. The CRU repeatedly turned down these requests, arguing that granting them would violate agreements over data its partners had collected.
I think I am right in saying that McIntyre asked for the CRUTEM data once, or possibly twice, so I don't this could reasonably be described as "dogged".
And then there's this:
It later became clear that CRU was not the only target . In the fall of 2009, unknown parties posing as network technicians attempted to break into the office of a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. There were also attempts to gain access to servers at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis.
That Ms Sheppard would still be pushing this story is hilarious, as it has already been shown to be, erm, bunk.
And lastly this:
The CRU, on the other hand, maintains that [Climategate] was the work of someone outside of the university—a "very professional job," says Trevor Davies , pro-vice chancellor for research at East Anglia and the former head of the CRU.
Interestingly, if you read the minutes of the Russell team's meetings with UEA bigwigs, they are not nearly so sure about whodunnit.
So, a few problems, but the article is actually more interesting for the timing. Why is this coming out now?