Looks like the word is going to be Copygate for the Wegman report investigation. I concur with Lucia who writes:
Skepticgate.
Keith [Kloor] campaigns in favor of his skepticgate writing:
I don’t think copygate has quite the same ring as skepticgate, but good for Jeff for noting it.
I’m betting one of the other of these words is going to catch on. I like “copygate” because the issue has to do with “copying”, where as “skeptic” could mean any number of possible issues. On the other hand, if literal connection to the precise issue governed these things, “climategate” might have been called “emailgate”.
I’m going to be using copygate for now. We’ll see what catches on.
My search shows “Copygate” to be in greater use already. Here’s the thread on Jeff Id’s blog and over at Keith’s Collide-a-Scape.
Given how Keith impatiently reacted to all this, I’ve moved him from “Lukewarmer” and put his blog link in with the others he consorts with. His attempt at maintaining that cool dispassionate psychologist illusion suffered from too many emissions. Too bad really, since we had so few true Lukewarmers.
FYI Andy Revkin coined the phrase “skepticgate” in a tweet, and Mr. Kloor is pushing that word at his blog, but didn’t coin it. IMHO it is too broad, since not all skeptics are under investigation, just one.
Howzabout goodenoughforgovernmentworkgate ?
@chris S
Shorten it to ObfusGate?
I was thinking of that, too 🙂
In any event, I’m sure they’re not going to be very happy with ….
“Can we trust the IPCC’s evidence?
[excerpts]
or with …
“Green fatigue hits campaign to reduce carbon footprint”
Plagergate.
AGW has nothing to do with the accusations, just the description.
Richard Sharpe says:
October 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“ZT, I encourage you to keep looking for other instances of what they claim Wegman has done.”
Looks like ZT found a “cookie-cutter” paper, and his claim that the 2008 paper not referencing the 2007 is true.
The 2008 paper did reference what sounds like a similar report:
“Vuille, M., 2006. Climate change in the tropical Andes — observations, models, and simulated future impacts on glaciers and streamflow. Mountain Research and Development”
I was unable to find that, but did find a reference to it as well as to the 2008 paper in an NSF grant, under “PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THIS RESEARCH”:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0836215
Curiously the site shows a grant start date of January 15, 2008, and the 2008 paper was received in May 2007.
An NSF grant for ” Impacts and Consequences of Predicted Climate Change on Andean Glaciation and Runoff” in 2008
“Climate change and tropical Andean glaciers: Past, present and future” in 2008
“Climate Change in the Tropical Andes – Impacts and Consequences..” in 2007
“Climate change in the tropical Andes — observations, models, and…” in 2006
The “cookie-cutter” originated either with the 2007 paper, which was a “report for CONAM and the World Bank” or the 2006 report, which appears to be a report for “Mountain Research Initiative”.
Is it possible that this main author, Mathias Vuille, was paid to do original research in 2006, then basically copied it with some frill thrown in and got paid for it again in 2007, then published basically the same thing in 2008 in a science journal, then got one or more government grants to report on the same thing?
Hoc(Wi)ki-gate