I wouldn't strut too hard. I posted the link to the actual report. You didn't, and neither did two of the three news stories you quoted.

You think I assumed nobody would read anything but my quote? Well, maybe you're right.

I had no problem with the conclusions of wrongdoing. I was just pointing out that the problems were localized, weren't that earth-shaking, and that they were solved long ago, according to this report. Certainly Hansen isn't suffering for lack for publicity.

While we could not substantiate that Administration officials employed outside NASA approved or disapproved or edited specific news releases, we do, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career Public Affairs Officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior Public Affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases.

This is definitely above "we feel like this is true," but not by much.

I see a definite trend in the media in regurgitating old issues. Maybe the new ones are too uncomfortable?

BTW, if I haven't complimented you on being one of the very few here who actually bothers to refute me with real information instead of blither, consider it done. A lot of work, ain't it?