And "Climate Gate" Will Henceforth Be Known As . . .


Yep, someone made Climate Gate t-shirts. Photo via Zazzle

There's an interesting 'contest' going over at Climate Progress to see who can come up with the best new name for 'Climate Gate'. See, for something to really qualify as any sort of 'Gate', illegal wrongdoing must be uncovered--and in the case of the hacked climate emails, both independent investigations by the involved universities and the official investigation of the British House of Commons have revealed that none has occurred. It's turned out to be much (much much) ado about nothing, and the scientific consensus on man-caused global warming remains just as overwhelmingly strong. So what do we call this case of over-hyped nonsense that's now (finally) receding into the past?For those who didn't see the news last week, here are the findings of the British House of Commons' investigation: (via ABC)

  1. There was nothing untoward behind the "trick" used to "hide the decline" in the temperature record. The phrases were colloquial terms without any sinister implications. The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

  2. The results and conclusions of CRU research have been independent verified by other methodologies and other sources of data. The Unit's analyses "have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified".

  3. There is no evidence to suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

  4. While 95 per cent of the CRU data have been publicly available for years and some of the remainder is subject to confidentiality agreements with overseas organisations, the report did find that CRU scientists had refused to hand over their data to climate "sceptics" and the University may have breached the Freedom of Information Act.

    Despite this finding, the Committee wrote that it "can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew--or perceived--were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work."

Columnist Clive Hamilton has a great piece about how all this amounts to "a lion that squeaked"--the actual substance of the hacked emails was far less controversial than anything the loony Lord Monckton says on a given day.

So now that we're all moving on after that much-publicized annoyance, we should maybe think of a new, more accurate name to call the event going forward.

Here are a few of the suggestions from CP's readers so far--go check out all of them at Climate Progress:

The Hacking of Climate Science
Al Capone's vault: Part 2

Add your own over at CP or, of course, in the comments.

More on the Hacked Climate Emails
Six Things We Learned from ' Climate Gate ': Rob Hopkins on the CRU ...
Jon Stewart Takes on "ClimateGate"

Related Content on