Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and the dean of congressional naysayers on the need for action on climate and energy, appeared to come up empty-handed today.

Inhofe had requested that the Commerce Department Inspector General investigate whether e-mails and other information revealed in the hacking of climate files at the University of East Anglia in December 2009 revealed any wrongdoing by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The news release from Inhofe’s office today held slim pickings if the hope was to uncover a scandal:

– A mention of a possible irregularity in some contracts with no discernible bearing on the quality of climate science.

– The phrase “warrants further action” was used in the release to describe eight e-mail messages that the inspectors found might potentially point to integrity issues. The problem is that the agency conducted interviews and document reviews and provided explanations in the report — none of which raised red flags. (Inhofe plans to pursue more investigations of these e-mails nonetheless, his release said.

– The report described some potentially improper actions related to the handling of requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act. While it did not name the scientist involved, the subject was clearly Susan Solomon, the agency scientist who was the co-leader of the 2007 science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The inspector general’s report, however, was unable to come to a conclusion because Solomon’s description of advice she received on providing files related to the climate panel lay in the arena of “she says, he says,” with little sign of a route forward. (Inhofe sees an opportunity here, though; you can read his reaction at the bottom of the post. ClimateAudit.org is digging, as well, of course.)

– Ah, but there was the final matter of the photo montage depicting Inhofe, along with an array of scientists questioning aspects of global warming theory, as imperiled on shrinking floes of sea ice.

It was deemed in bad taste by Jane Lubchenco, the agency administrator. And it — like a heap of other mean-spirited artwork generated around Climategate — was indeed in bad taste.

Here’s a link to the full report, and below you can read the core conclusions, distributed by the oceanic and atmospheric agency earlier today:

The Inspector General’s report states specifically:

· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11)

· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)

· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12)

· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16) The report notes a careful review of eight e-mails that it said “warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data,” that was completed and did not reveal reason to doubt the scientific integrity of NOAA scientists or data. The report questions the way NOAA handled a response to four FOIA requests in 2007. The FOIA requests sought documents related to the review and comments of part of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. NOAA scientists were given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA. The requesters were directed to the IPCC, which subsequently made available the review, comments and responses which are online at: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html and //hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/index.html

Here’s Inhofe’s statement related to Solomon’s handling of the Freedom of Information Act request:

It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze. Her justification for blocking the release was contradicted by two career attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. This is no doubt a serious matter that deserves further investigation. [Read the rest.]

I’m all for aggressive use, and enforcement, of Freedom of Information laws, as is the Union of Concerned Scientists. But hopefully further action on Solomon’s case won’t stray into harassment.