Law vs Science in Climategate 2

In a previous post I questioned if it is meaningful to separate legality from scientific truth in Climategate. This question comes up again as the UN announces an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility:

• The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
• The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
• He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming.

What is the purpose of avoiding the overarching scientific question, and instead focus on administrative processes?  To recover scientific credibility?

If the processes are correct but the science incorrect, or if the processes are incorrect

but the science correct, then the investigation is meaningless.  A meaningful investigation  must address the science.

The fact that the Royal Society will oversee the investigation does not add to the credibility,

because the Royal Society fully supports IPCC even after Climategate. The outcome of the investigation is therefore fully predictable.

But The Tide is Turning on Global Warming.

• Even Al Gore, in an appearance this week on the Norwegian talk show Skavlan, to promote his recent book, Our Choice, has admitted: “I have thus far failed, and our world has thus far failed to respond adequately to this crisis".