The CRU research was "misrepresented" by the IPCC? Only to the extent that the IPCC failed to belabor the obvious. Nor did the inquiry panel say anything like, "the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit may not have used the best methods for analyzing temperature records." That was an extreme embellishment by Webster. The only thing the scientific panel said that remotely similar to Webster's allegation pertained to the data analyses of tree rings:
After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.
But also:
It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.
And the panel was also very clear that the CRU's critics, to put it charitably, did not know what they were talking about:
We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.
Remember, this is The Times' Environmental Editor reporting the story, which, on this side of the Atlantic, became:
"Climate Scientists Cleared, U.N. Blamed for Misinterpreting Data"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
