1) Yes, the author confused Penn State with the UPenn. The Financial Post should probably correct it, but I find it excusable that a Canadian author writing in a Canadian paper might not properly distinguish them. This did not cause me to discount the rest of the article.
2) Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading "Home / Opinion / FP Comment".
3) No mention of email hacking? What about the "link to a zip file posted online at a Russian Web address" that "contained 5,000 emails written by some of the most prominent names in climate science." Sure, it didn't use the word hacking, but for all we know it might have been an inside job. Unless you have personal knowledge to the contrary? (cue the police coming to seize your computers)
4) Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown? You do realize that Tallbloke is not a suspect in the case, and that his computers were seized _explicitly_ in an effort to track down the source of that comment containing that link? Is this the first time you've come across this story?
5) "Seems like this is written by a conspiracy nut". Well, that's a matter of opinion, but "seems" is an odd word choice. As the byline mentions, she's the proud author of the "recently published exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert." I haven't read it, and so can't comment on its quality. Have you? I've read some of Matt Ridley's books, though, and he called it "one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years". (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/delinquent-teenager)
5) I do appreciate the link. In particular the part where he retracted his clearly libelous statements, in which he coyly refers to "certain things that could be misinterpreted", as if "the seizure of computer equipment that appears to be linked to the storage and dissemination of the stolen documents" might have a completely different meaning Mr Tatershall's legal jurisdiction? And the part where he offers Mr Tatersall space for a response in return for not "pursuing legal action that was previously suggested"? Was this perhaps added after you read it? Or is that the part you are calling attention to?