If the excerpt is anything to go by, this is a very poorly written article by the NYTimes, playing right into the deniers’ hands by downplaying the complete vindication of the actual data and scientific work done by the CRU. It completely misses the larger point, made very plain by Joe Romm:

Leftovers, again? One climate scientist calls the email dump, “Two-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving 2009.”

These are the “second string” emails. The Varsity team couldn’t derail the science so it’s really hard to see how the Junior Varsity team could. In other words, if multiple independent investigations showed that climate science was unscathed by the original batch of emails — which must have been the ones the deniers thought were the best they had — then what precisely are the chances these even weaker second-stringers are going to beat the climate science team? After all, the climate science team has gotten considerably stronger in recent years.