Climategate: an exercise in irrelevance

The release today of the third independent review into the "climategate" scandal really should, but inevitably won't, draw a line under the whole sorry saga.

As was clear to any rational individual within weeks of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia emerging last year, the whole affair has been an almighty storm in a teacup.

The Russell inquiry today concluded that the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists involved is not in question and that they did not subvert the peer review process or manipulate data.

The only areas of concern raised relate to the scientists' failure to properly understand the importance of Freedom of Information requests – an issue that had no impact on the scientists' actual research.

While the publication of the report marks a perfect opportunity to consign " climategate" to the history books alongside all the other bogus "-gates", it is worth taking the opportunity to analyse the impact of the scandal on the business community and the emerging low-carbon economy. In short, it amounts to precisely zero.

The bulk of the global business community knew from the start to treat " climategate" with the contempt it clearly deserved.

Speak to green executives at some of the world's leading companies, and it quickly becomes clear that the scandal failed to spark even the slightest flicker of concern. International climate change negotiations are important, US efforts to pass a climate bill are important, concerns over oil supplies are important, the potential collapse of BP is important – a row between climate scientists and sceptics over Freedom of Information requests? Do me a favour.

This indifference was partly down to the congenital desire of corporate executives to avoid commenting publicly on any vaguely controversial topic that does not have a direct impact on the bottom line. Even the most garrulous of business leaders know to button their lip when issues relating to science and morality crop up.

But mainly the shrugged shoulders were driven by an understanding that the accusations levelled at the work of scientists by so-called climate sceptics were so staggeringly irrelevant as to be laughable. The accusation that climate scientists are perpetrating some kind of grand hoax on the global economy have about as much influence on the world's political and corporate decision-makers as a football fan from Milton Keynes writing to FIFA to argue that England really should be in the World Cup final on Sunday ("but the ball crossed the line").

Business leaders understand risks and, unlike climate sceptics, they instinctively recognise that scientists are dealing in degrees of certainty rather than absolutes. Climatologists use collected data and models to try and predict the likelihood that temperatures will change as concentrations of greenhouse gases change. Business executives do something similar on a daily basis, trying to gauge the likely success of a new product or strategy and making decisions based on the balance of probability. They have applied this same approach to climate change, looking at the research and concluding that the risks of disruption to their business models are high enough to warrant action.

In addition, climate change is not the only factor driving investment in low-carbon products and services. Those companies that have invested billions developing a greener approach to doing business realise that concerns over energy security, water shortages, raw material availability, population growth, biodiversity loss and the kind of environmental and legislative risks that BP has so amply demonstrated, mean that the low-carbon economy would make sense even if the Russell inquiry had uncovered the biggest scientific crime ever perpetrated.

Climate sceptics can obfuscate as much as they like, they have repeatedly proved themselves incapable of laying a glove on the scientific consensus surrounding climate change and are proving even less adept at slowing the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Climate scientists cannot ignore the sceptics if they are to retain confidence in the scientific process, and if anything they need to work harder to counter the misinformation peddled by sceptic groups. But thankfully businesses have the luxury of ignoring any issues that are irrelevant to their activities, and they are extremely comfortable about doing just that.

The sceptics can protest all they like, when it comes to the business community fewer and fewer people are listening.