DOE Funding For CRU Placed On Hold

Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times

The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.

The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.

It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract.

This should have been renewed automatically in April, but the department has suspended all payments since May pending a scientific peer review of the unit’s work.

The leaked emails caused a global furore. They appeared to suggest that CRU scientists were using “tricks” to strengthen the case for man-made climate change and suppressing dissent.

A spokesman for the DoE said: “The renewal application was placed on hold pending the conclusion of the inquiry into scientific misconduct by Sir Alastair Muir Russell.”

Muir Russell published his report earlier this month. It said that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists were not in doubt but criticised them for “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”.

The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.

A spokesman for the university said: “We are still waiting to hear if the latest bid for funding to the US Department of Energy has been successful and would not comment or speculate in the meantime.”

The Sunday Times, 18 July 2010

Advertisements

128 thoughts on “DOE Funding For CRU Placed On Hold

  1. Wonderful! I hope DoE sends the memo to EPA head Jackson. Just think, a debate about climate science within our government. Will wonders never cease?

  2. I would never have suspected a shortage of whitewash at Stephen Chu’s DoE.

    I’m sure it’s just temporary, there’s a new bucket on the way right now.

  3. So the whitewashes are clearly about keeping the cash flow from Uncle Sugar flowing.

    I’ll note that BP was also one of the CRU’s biggest funders. Given Obama just raped BP for $30 billion, methinks their charitable giving office is going to be pruning donations for a few years.

    Lean times ahead at the CRU. Phil and Keith are going to have to cut back on the caviar.

  4. Lets hope that Dr. Steven Chu has not traded in his scientific integrity for political expediency. I have hope that he is a true scientist and curiosity will drive him to pursue the truth, against the faux religious forces pushing the AGW agenda.

  5. Sorry guys!

    The hole establishment sticks together. This is only to pretend that they care or bother. There is just to much prestige and vested intrests on the line here.
    Do you really think that criminal (but prescribated) actions will affect anything?
    That CRU used “official channels” to get rid of critics and auditors?
    Isnt EPA and DoE the “official channels P Jones is referring to?
    Or does P Jones mean Mr Watson personally when he rites the e mails?
    And why Mr Anthony Watts isnt anybody asking Mr Jones what he is refering to?

    Du you or anyone know??

  6. Never fear. DoE will soon examine the quality of whitewash used and skill at application, then resume funding for the rotting refuse heap beneath it.

  7. Hmm that explains why when I dropped my razor this AM it fell UP! this is a good thing…

  8. Another whitewash in the works. I predict that with the growing practice of whitewashing that the earth’s albedo will be increased and we will go into an extended period of cooling, probably lasting until at least 2035. By then, newly fatted out Himalayan glaciers can then start a new unprecedented melting, hippos that were turned back from their swim to Svalbaard will be returning (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/peer-reviewed-science-polar-bears-of-the-past-survived-warmth/ ), and beachfront property on Victoria Island will be reclaimed.

  9. . . . the department has suspended all payments since May pending a scientific peer review of the unit’s work.

    Why are my hopes for an impartial assessment not rising?

  10. Does is strike anyone else as odd that the U.S. DOE is partially funding the CRU? I guess I’m glad to hear the U.S. and G.B. are “cooperating”, but can’t the Brits pay for their own propaganda? Or are they helping our own propaganda machine the GISS? And if they are, why would we be exchanging money in this manner?

  11. Lean times ahead at the CRU. Phil and Keith are going to have to cut back on the caviar.

    It’s not easy being green anymore:

  12. Mike McMillan says:
    July 18, 2010 at 8:36 am

    “Why are my hopes for an impartial assessment not rising?”

    Uhmm, because experience is the best teacher?

  13. Just another ploy to restore legitimacy to CRU.

    Yet another official thumbs up that the science is sound – with a gratuitous slap on the wrist to make it look like it was a real investigation.

    Quite the opposite of what it is advertised to be.

  14. Thank you, America. I hope we are on the road to sanity. Perhaps we could have the DoE look into whether the US tax payers’ contribution to the IPCC is money well spent – given all the recent ‘gates’.

  15. “The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.”

    Maybe Surfacestations.org could apply for the funding and maintain an honest database of surface temperatures.

  16. If all else fails they’ll plead to the UK National Lottery. It seems to have a bottomless pit of cash for hopeless and lost causes.

  17. One of the commentators (Mike Lorrey) points out the role of the ‘Beyond Petroleum’ company in funding CRU. There was another place heavily funded by BP: Lawrence Berkeley Lab, at the time when Dr. Steven Chu was head of that National Laboratory. Honi soi qui mal y pense.

  18. US halts funds for climate unit – pg3 – Sunday Times – 18th July 2010.

    Thought I’s pu this comment in the right article..
    I think this is the same Times correspondent, that was at the Guardian ‘climategate’ following the Muir Russell. The one I heard saying it was ‘shocking’ that Muir Russell had not been part of the process interviewing Phil Jones (Head of CRU) after the inquiry panel had formed…

    The article finsished with:

    “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”

    ——————————————

    Perhaps someone in the USA could advice the DoE of the many and varied criticisms of the Muir Russell review. Not least that it was a total whitewash, documented at Climate Audit.

    As outlined by Steve Mcintyre at the Guardian debate on climategate in London on Wednesday the 14th July 2010, that Muir Russell had only met with Phil Jones (head of unit) before the panel had been formed and the inquiry started. The Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (UEA) to confirm whether this was the case, and Trevor Davis, eventually said Phil Jones met Muir Russell in January.. The panel convened in February..

    Lots of detail about the Muir Russell review failings at, Climate Audit..

    Another criticism being, Muir Russell had not EVEN contacted Steve Mcintyre, or a number of the other critics, let alone interviewed any of the critics of CRU discussed many times in the emails, whose complaints about data openess led to Illegal (in face of FOI request) deleteions of emails relating to IPCC AR4… ‘review saying ‘no evidence of deletions’!!

    From the WSJ, on Muir Russell inquiry
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

    “It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise.”

    Mr. Jones emailed later that he had “deleted loads of emails” so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, “Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.”

    —— my thoughts again below
    These included senior AMERICAN scientists, so presumably funding for the AMERICAN scientist should be looked at by the DoE’s peer review panel as well.

    Perhaps the DoE should request all correspondence from the American scientists that were communicating and working with CRU scientists, as both sets of scientists were co-authors and worked closely in the same ‘climate’ field and both very involved in the IPCC process.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/muir-russell-skipped-jones-interviews/

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/10/bob-denton-on-muir-russell/

    and more articles about Muir Russell at Climate Audit

  19. No evidence of peer review surpressing ‘sceptical’, post ‘climategate’ it still ‘seems’ to be happening…

    Perhaps someone should tell the scientific journals…
    I read this WSJ article, and missed something, that The Air Vent picked up on…

    Pat Michaels:
    “Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

    The Air Vent’s thoughts:
    “Blocking of papers that came to different conclusions from climate journals was one of the central issues of climategate. The conspiracy to block certain views was openly discussed in the emails, of course the ‘review’ panels couldn’t seem to read them, but whatever.”

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/i-hope-not/

  20. It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract.

    Nice, I’ve helped pay $4,000,000(U.S.) for that tripe. Of course, the way we throw(print) money around here, that’s hardly a drop in the bucket, seeing we use terms such as $trillion with such frequency here, I was beginning to wonder if we knew there were amounts less than 1,000,000,000. (Please, no one tell the current administration what comes after a trillion.) But now here and a phone conversation I had with a former congressional representative(he was engaged in taking public funds and directly inputting them into private companies for rural high-speed internet through the RUS and NRTC) confirms they still remember there are amounts less than a billion.

  21. So, CRU received money from the DOE on a rolling grant basis to the tune of half-a-million tri-annually.

    Perhaps our esteamed host can state here how much he got from the DOE for his research critical of the CRU and fellow AGWers? I guess, but it’s only a guess, that it
    is nill, zilch, nothing, nada.

    Who again was in the pockets of the big money?

  22. James Sexton says:
    July 18, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Does is strike anyone else as odd that the U.S. DOE is partially funding the CRU? I guess I’m glad to hear the U.S. and G.B. are “cooperating”, but can’t the Brits pay for their own propaganda? Or are they helping our own propaganda machine the GISS?

    =======================================

    Exactly! Also…I would trust CRU data over GISS data any ole’ day.

    That’s not saying very much, though…

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  23. I cannot believe that a government that has Lisa Jackson saying, “greenhouse gases are pollution,” Steven Chu wanting houses and roads painted white to cool the earth, and Barak Obama wanting people’s energy bills to “necessarily skyrocket” is doing this. Something is up, this is window dressing, and in the end it will only lead to a dramatic increase of funding to CRU.

  24. Is DOE funding Intelliweather too? Once again the color-coded map shows Toronto cool at 77 but Atlanta and New Orleans hot at the same temperatures:

    We seem to accept very sloppy work by the climate industry.

  25. Robinson says:
    July 18, 2010 at 8:08 am

    I rather hope the British government will do the same.

    Don’t be daft – our government – like most governments these days – will do everything it can to maintain the status quo and keep the green train rolling.

  26. Gary D, was on the right track. Anthony you should apply to become the impartial repository for all RAW climate data, above reproach, trickery, manipulation or losing it when it is convenient to do so.

  27. Wow

    New Scientist on Muir Russell and other inquiries.
    Referring to the three UK reports, it says this:

    “none looked at the quality of the science itself”;

    and this:
    “Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself”,

    and this:
    “… the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned are not in doubt” …

    and more – especially this:
    “But what happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.”

    It can be found here:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727692.900-without-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html

    New Scientist have been a big advocate of CAGW, AGW or agw, whatever it should be called.. New Scientist, infamously, had an Age of Denial issue a couple of months ago – including Climate Change (presumably man made?) Denial

  28. Is Chu twisting Jackson slowly, slowly in the wind or are the inmates in charge of the asylum? Choose both, my friend.
    ===================

  29. “The renewal application was placed on hold pending the conclusion of the inquiry into scientific misconduct by Sir Alastair Muir Russell.”
    “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”

    The peer review channel will not peer review any alleged scientific misconduct. Oy will peer review the conclusions of the Alastair Muir Russell enquiry.

    The Alastair Muir Russell Enquiry – “the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists are not in doubt ” – Now what could this possibly mean? We will soon know from the DOE enquiry.

  30. THIS may be the real reason for the FIOA secrecy. They are getting 200 grand for a couple of days work and did not want anyone to see how piffling the job was.

    In fact seeing the huge figures on some of the tenders what were exposed in the emails, there is a huge financial pressure for the university to appoint some sympathetic, ex-college researcher to do the “independent” inquiry and to carefully step around any issues they may be contentious.

    Just to make sure he was “independent” they gave him a list of the papers they wanted him to look at (an hence implicitly those to avoid).

  31. A spokesman for the DoE said: “The renewal application was placed on hold pending the conclusion of the inquiry into scientific misconduct by Sir Alastair Muir Russell.”

    Well, the Muir Russell repport is in. It exonerated the scientists of any serious wrong doing… does anyone really expect to see DoE challenge the conclusion? Even though it was the Oxburgh report that was supposed to examine the science and Russell was to examine the conduct and integrity…. given that CRU has received unprecedented scrutiny and emerged nearly beatified, I’d suggest that a doubling or tripling of CRU’s grants is not out of the question. This organization is a world treasure addressing the most important issue of our time and needs our whole-hearted support and should be exploited to the utmost.

    Anyone feeling a little nauseous yet?

  32. There is still hope. The DoE might publish their reasoning on the matter. That gives critics something to work with. Also, because the opinion comes from DoE, that gives Senator Inhofe a starting point. Maybe the once-MSM will conver the matter. Finally, there is the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Obama is looking for an excuse not to push Cap’n Trade.

  33. Chu an honest scientist?… wow.

    As for the DOE witholding funding, I wouldn’t be chilling the sparkly just yet. They have to somewhat maintain the appearance of scrutiny, but let’s not forget what they chose to scrutinize. A report that basically said “Hey…these are good chaps, just not quite as open as we’d’ve liked!”

    Nothing to see here, move along, move along…

    JimB

  34. OT.

    Anyone know what to make of this rather large area of VERY cold water that just appeared in the Atlantic? I don’t recall seeing that before. It wasn’t there in the gif fro the 11th

  35. This is the FIRST time I’ve heard of the U. S. taxpayer funding the CRU! After all the coverage of this scandal and no one has done any parody or sarcasm or videos about that ripoff yet. Wow!

  36. In tune with the theme above…
    Mere days after stepping into office, Mr. Chu, oops, Dr. Chu renounced decades (and tens of $billions) of scientific study on the appropriate location for permanent nuclear waste disposal facility in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, home State of the ‘necessary’ Harry Ried, citing lack of scientific basis for the site selection.

    I suspect James Hanson will redeem himself, and NASA’a hand in ‘Climategate’ by introduction of ‘Shariah Mathmatics’ into the AGW climate modelling protocol.

    Michael Mann, of course, will head the ‘Blue Ribbon Panel’ tasked with ‘peer review’ of CRU ‘tricks’.

  37. Interesting – there’s no mention of this in the online versions of the 2 local papers in Norwich, I bet there won’t be anything in the print editions next week, either.

    But if you only read them, you would know very little about the “leak” in any case….

  38. One wonders if all these whitewashes are connected to a fear by the establishment of being sued for misrepresentation of the causes of global climate variation. The politicians and universtity administrators are asking for another bucket of whitewash to cover their backs so that if (when) all the “science” falls apart they can point to the advice they received that the money was going into an institution that had been approved by the scientific community.

    The fall guys will be the scientists. not the politicians and not the universities. For this reason scientists should not be silent, they should be standing up and saying “no, these methods do not reach standards that are acceptable to us as scientists”. Those scientists who approve CRU will be using their status as scientists to protect the grants of CRU and at the same time dragging your profession into disrepute. The longterm outcome will be very bad for the reputation of science and afterwards you will find all grants for scientific research will become harder to get because it will be associated in teh publics mind with memories of corruption in your midst that was systematically hidden by the scientific community.

  39. Once US administration announced the 42 Billion dollars in funding for new reactors, the funding of the CRU was no longer needed. I expect that UK Nirex Ltd. and KFA Germany will soon follow the DoE in their ‘examination’.

    Once all of the near-shore LNG terminal are likewise funded we will see the Big Oil companies (and the Sultanate of Oman) pull their funding of the CRU for some reason.

    Once Britian starts full funding for Ethenol we will see Tate and Lyle and Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre find a ‘reason’.

  40. Great, give the funding to NOAA to support the expansion of the National Climatic Data Center; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html. They share the research reports and data openly.

    Let’s get correct Peer Reviewed data for North and South America before implying we have a baseline for Global Climate Models.

    OT: has anyone run across any ice-core research and analysis from the glaciers in Alaska? The research, other then ice-cores, I’ve found indicate the temperature analysis from Antarctica and Greenland ice-cores does not properly reflect temperature in this area of the Arctic during the last glacial (possibly all glacials).

  41. Chu may have once been a scientist, but was assimilated up by the borg that is AGW. Expect nothing more than the usual whitewash from DoE. The narrative must be adhered to, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

  42. $200,000 can hardly be concidered major funding. Cuccinellini has spent much more that in his little snipe hunt.

  43. I respectfully suggest to the DOE peer review panel use a high-quality enamel, instead of regular whitewash. It will be more durable, and more cost-effective in the long run. And we’re paying for it, after all.

  44. After following the Congressional Investigation Whitewash of the “Downer Cow ” fiasco and the Conagri e-coli investigation, I have no hopes for a factual assessment. If Congress supports corporations that sell tainted food to consumers with the blessings of the USDA how can we expect a fair hearing for CO2? There is another parallel. Food recalls have increased and become major headlines. Instead of fixing the problem at the food processing plants and returning to government oversight, the “new improved” food safety regulations explicitly leave HACCP in place and impose trackback to the farmer so processing plant SNAFUs and liability can be blamed on the farmer. Don’t you love the logic?

    The old US food safety regulations required feces tainted meat to be condemned. The new improved food safety regulations of 1996 called HACCP allow feces to be washed off the meat and the meat sold to you and me. Also HACCP allows corporate testing to replace USDA testing, so there is no safety check that the feces contaminated meat is actually safe.

    See the GAP major report titled “Shielding the Giant: USDA’s ‘Don’t Look, Don’t Know’ Policy for Beef Inspection. http://www.foodhaccp.com/1news/121508g.html

    New Safety Rules [HACCP] Fail to Stop Tainted Meat: http://www.blueverticalstudio.com/go/?p=609

    Here is the ConAgra fiasco
    One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented: http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/07/articles/lawyer-oped/one-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-i-think-i-could-have-prevented/

    ConAgra to Recycle Poop-Tainted Meat into Canned Chili and Pet Food: http://www.purefood.org/toxic/poop080702.cfm

  45. Stopping the funding pending a review just gives more work to the DOE bureau. It means nothing by itself.

    Dr.Chu is probably scrupulous about his own work. No reason to think or imply otherwise. But as a political administrator and policy maker he cannot be wholly in control of what gets approved or stopped and who is favored or punished even within the DoE.

    The peer review must speak for itself.

  46. From the article:

    “Muir Russell published his report earlier this month. It said that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists were not in doubt…”

    Muir Russell’s definition of ‘rigor’ doesn’t fit with Phil Jones admitting that the CRU lost a large part of its data, and the rest of it is in disarray. How is that ‘rigorous’?

    And of course this temporary funding halt is just smoke and mirrors.

  47. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
    . Finally, there is the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Obama is looking for an excuse not to push Cap’n Trade.

    I think you have that right.

  48. It’s about time. The complete and total economic collapse of the US will take care of the rest of the scam artists.

    I believe global warming is for real. I do not believe man-made global warming is for real. I believe global cooling is for real and that is what is happening today.

    Wasn’t it those guys who were shredding data?

  49. I think this shows the REAL agenda. Watch Stewards video of EIGHT presidents saying the US must stop being dependent of oil.

    So EIGHT presidents fail.

    Here is my theory; For some reason the leadership thinks is bad being dependant on oil. Why? My guess is the FLOW of big money to the arab states. It finance the islamic world big time.

    The leadership of the US finally finds a way; Convince the gullibles that CO2 is dangerous. Tax it so it becomes so expensive that other solutions are forced into play.

    Many, many people think this is a nice solution.That is way everyone plays along.
    The greens love it. The politicians love it. The socialists love it. The media loves it.

    There, thats my theory. Me thinks.

  50. Tis an incestuous relationship and no one need expect anything other than a resumption and lo an increase in funding. Remember the politics of the regime.

    That is until after November.

  51. Unfortunately, Steven Chu is a hardcore believer in the science peer review process. It appears he may even supplant much of rigorous nuclear oversight process an model it after the peer review process. At this point, the climate science community needs to learn some lessons from the nuclear industry and develop more professional quality assurance, configuration management of their databases and processes, and truly independent oversight.

  52. So the DOE is going to review a whitewash report. Why not look at the emails themselves. We have moved to the level where there are reviewers of fact that make up opinions for others to review and make up opinions ….. then check with a policy adviser or czar and then send the money.

  53. David, UK says:
    July 18, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Don’t be daft – our government – like most governments these days – will do everything it can to maintain the status quo and keep the green train rolling.

    The Renewables Obligation charge on all UK energy bills last year amounted to £1.2Bn. and is statutarily set to double by 2020. A nice fat pot for Ministers to get their hands in.
    Chris Huhne continues to except Nuclear from a share in this munificence with our money on grounds so specious that my comprehension of them defies their description.
    Will he appear on the Board of a renewables company when he leaves Parliament as a reward for shafting the populace? What do you think?

  54. Ultimately, they’re going to find CRU did no wrong yada yada yada, AND that it validates global warming AND they need to pass the Cap and Trade bill immediately.

    Barack Obama is in the WH, and everyone toes the line to his agenda, whether that’s Eric Holder letting Black Panthers off the voter-intimidation hook or Steven Chu nodding stupidly in the direction of CAGW, the agenda happens without regard to facts.

  55. An international reader (non-USA teenager) might find some things here a little confusing. For example, John McManus @ 10:47 uses the term “snipe hunt” in the sense of a prank, explained here:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snipe+Hunt

    … that says “Snipes are an imaginary game bird”.

    This is not true, as indicated here:
    http://birdweb.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=183

    and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe

    This makes me wonder how many other things written here are not clear to the readers with differing backgrounds.

  56. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 10:47 am
    $200,000 can hardly be concidered major funding
    ============================================================

    John that’s $4 million.

    $4 million to make some phone calls, send some emails, and write down some temperatures, which they lost, erased, deleted.

  57. As I have said some time back, many will be thrown under the bus.
    We may be witnessing just that, or, as some suggest, epoxied whitewash.
    Political climates change, and hot potatoes must necessarily get dropped.

  58. Eric Dailey says:
    July 18, 2010 at 9:53 am

    This is the FIRST time I’ve heard of the U. S. taxpayer funding the CRU! After all the coverage of this scandal and no one has done any parody or sarcasm or videos about that ripoff yet. Wow!

    There were so many other low hanging fruit….

    It has been discussed here, at least under a different context. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/#comment-261031

  59. No. $200,00 is not $4m. Even a rolling 3 year $200,000 is not $4m.

    Snipes are real birds, but a snipe hunt is an exercise wherupon a sugestable loser is set upon a futile task in order to humiliate. Cuchinelli seems to have fallen for the trick.

  60. Unless this investigation is designed to be adversarial, with each side allowed to call its own witnesses, ask questions of the other side’s witnesses under oath, and subpoena documents, then the DOE’s show is just another Potemkin village. The outcome will be another whitewash.

  61. The DOE will fold and give them the money.
    If not, they will go the way of NASA and have their formost goal to reach out to Muslims because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their accomplishments to energy production (remind them they send us oil).

  62. 200 grand ayear is nothing as fas as funding for a major institution goes…..it’s insignificant…..a book keeping error…..

  63. State of the Climate
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSelected Global Highlights for June 2010
    * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005.
    * June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.
    * The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F)—the warmest on record.
    * It was the warmest April–June (three-month period) on record for the global land and ocean temperature and the land-only temperature. The three-month period was the second warmest for the world’s oceans, behind 1998.
    * It was the warmest June and April–June on record for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and all land areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
    * It was the warmest January–June on record for the global land and ocean temperature.

  64. Gentlemen

    Interesting… I would like a lawyers take on this.

    Given U.S. government funds were provided to the CRU; then it would appear that U.S. citizens can require information release of related UAE data and information related to the contract under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Further as a recipient of federal funds, both the CRU and the DOE are liable for thier practices under U.S. federal procurement law.

    This may provide additional routes to obtain withheld information from the CRU & provide routes for U.S. judicial review of the DOE and CRU’s practices.

    For example, if the CRU used fraudulent data or practices to support application for or used the funds to commit a fraud; this would be a potential criminal act and/or a civil wrong that can be addressed though the U.S. federal courts. (The UEA lead British whitewash not withstanding).

    Citizen complaints of fraud require a formal U.S. government review, upon application of a complaint to the DOE’s Inspector General and/or the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. Also, a U.S. citizen may individually sue for recovery of federal funds, if the CRU’s practices can be shown to commit fraud against the U.S. – even if the U.S. Attorney General’s Office declines to investigate. (As I recall the citizen gets a cut of the recovered funds – so there a real incentive to pursue fraud).

    Further, if the DOE allowed the contracts to be sole sourced…then this opens multiple questions like: who was the U.S. DOE procurement official (contract officer), who was the U.S. contract officer’s representative, and under what justification was the contract sole sourced?

    Normally federal law requires an agency producing a sole source procurement justification requires the agency to develop a plan to eliminate the need to sole source. If this contract was renewed under multiple 3-year contracts without a plan to eliminate the sole source (using competitive bids), this would be a violation of U.S. procurement law that can and should be addressed.

    Also, in most research contracts I’ve dealt with, there is a contract requirement that the data used to support the research be held for a specified numbers years. If the data the CRU “lost” was bound by theses terms of this contract? Interesting implications.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve dealt with U.S. federal procurement law enough to know there are multiple land mines here. Federal law regarding the issuance of contracts is designed to be transparent and requires strict adherence. It’s one of the few areas of government activity that must be handled carefully and with the absolute integrity.
    Looks to me like the admission that U.S. federal funds were used by the CRU changes the ball game. The British are not in full charge here. We have different routes to ensure review and accountability.

    Kforestcat

  65. I suspect Penn State will get much less from BP for the geology department.
    Energy Secretary Chu said BP will save the planet.
    My major beef is the cash cutoff to NASA for space travel. Using NASA to reach out to Muslims doesn’t seem to make sense.

  66. Henry chance says:
    July 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    “[…] My major beef is the cash cutoff to NASA for space travel. Using NASA to reach out to Muslims doesn’t seem to make sense.”

    Especially because they’re not in space.

  67. Jon Rom says:
    July 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    “State of the Climate
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSelected Global Highlights for June 2010”

    Boy, you missed it, but i said on a different thread that these “highlights” if presented by a skeptic would immediately lead to a (justified) accusation of cherry-picking by a warmist. But thanks for bringing it up again.

  68. The Department of Energy will be a bit cautious in making any ruling
    or finding on CRU funding as well as pushing the “hazard” aspect of
    atmospheric CO2 until after the dust from this November’s elections
    settles.

    Having the House or the Senate change party leasership may be very
    hazardous to DoE’s current ability to take philosophy (or religion),
    shape it into policy, and pump out rules and fund programs without
    stiff oversight.

    Nobody wants to answer pointed questions under oath put to them
    by knowledgible and unhappy House or Senate investigative
    committees…

  69. I don’t mean to bore readers, but there is more to the political maneuvering. Senator Rockefeller, D W.VA, submitted a bill to delay for two years implementation of EPA head Jackson’s ruling on CO2. The bill was submitted some weeks ago and Rockefeller remains opposed to the ruling. Senator Byrd, D W.VA., died. There will be an election to replace Byrd in November. Losing that seat would be the equal of losing Kennedy’s seat. W. VA. belongs to the Democratic Party only because of the unions in the coal industry. Facing a revolution in W. VA. for the November elections is not something that the administration would like to face. It would mean very bad press. They might very well be looking for an excuse to back away from the Greens and Cap’n Trade.

  70. Jon Rom says:
    July 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    “State of the Climate
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSelected Global Highlights for June 2010…..”

    Yeh, yeh, it’s always the hottest evuh. Strange, while we are perpetually the hottest evuh, nothing seems to happen other than alarmist hype. The polar caps are still there, see the above story, we haven’t all drowned, floods and simultaneous droughts haven’t occurred, nothing, nade, zilch. Just hype, higher taxes, less employment and higher utility bills. Well, there are those poor people starving because we’ve raised the price of food in response to our ethanol debacle. All because some people have an irrational fear of CO2. Hottest evuh…..

    BTW, you should peruse this site and familiarize yourself with the temp gathering techniques employed by NOAA, and then also familiarize yourself with the data manipulation NOAA and other climate tracking bodies engage in. Their credibility is stretched beyond its limits.

  71. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    No. $200,00 is not $4m. Even a rolling 3 year $200,000 is not $4m.
    =========================================

    woops, I hate math, absolutely hate it
    I was thinking since 1990 was 20 years and 20 times $200,000 a year.
    I have no idea what rolling means.

    Thanks John

  72. The last UK Government told us most authoritatively “that the (climate) science is settled”. Why would we still need CRU? We presumably ceased funding research into whether the world was flat or round quite some years ago?

  73. As a Brit, I would like to apologise most sincerely to our US Cousins for my once-great country for having taken so many of your Tax-Payers dollars to fund our Climate Fraud Factory.
    On the other hand, I am eternally grateful that it is YOUR money being thus wasted, and not just mine!

  74. Have our friends at Mimmesotans 4 Global Warming heard about this? I’m sure their take on this story and the other whitewashes would be very interesting.

  75. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    No. $200,00 is not $4m. Even a rolling 3 year $200,000 is not $4m.

    Snipes are real birds, but a snipe hunt is an exercise wherupon a sugestable loser is set upon a futile task in order to humiliate. Cuchinelli seems to have fallen for the trick.
    —————Reply:
    Really? Someday soon I’m betting you’re going to be eating your words. Then I shall have the pleasure of reminding you so.

  76. It sure looks like they are out to delegitimize any scientist who might be in a position to question the ‘received’ projection of a global warming disaster caused by the gross over-development of modern industry. Rather than trimming their sails in response to criticisms of this theory, this looks more to me like ‘full emergency power forward’ to save the world. I suspect the CRU funding delay is a procedural process so that there will be no grounds for questioning that expense in the future.

  77. There must be something strange about November 19, the day FOIA.zip got out on the web.

    Here in Queensland on November 19, 2004 – Mulrunji Doomadgee taken into the Palm Island watch house following the arrest of his nephew over the use of foul language. Later found dead in his cell.

    Palm Island man Mulrunji Doomadgee, 36, suffered massive internal injuries and died in a police cell on November 19, 2004

    Since then there has been numerous inquiries into this incident by the police and the establishment, and still, today, in 2010, 6 years later, there is no resolution.

    Inquiry after inquiry has tried to cover this up, but it won’t go away.

    Lets hope the same is true for the CRU inquiries.

    Seems to me, the people in authority are just so arrogant, they treat the public as a bunch of dumb fools.

  78. I somehow doubt that this is just another attempt to restore legitimacy (to CRU). If this were the case, why would one want to draw even more attention to the Climategate debacle, and esp. through decidedly official channels? Even if a whitewash occurs (again, and yes, this is certainly possible), the mere admission of a potential for wrong-doing by such a Govt. body in any event must certainly give legitimacy to those questioning the AGW farce. Also, why would such a statement be made so close to the time of a potential vote on cap and trade? Only if a D of E review is made very quickly and much less convincingly, it would pre-date such a vote. One can be an optimist still. Maybe there are still quite a few Govt. scientists who care about the public, and are now being a bit more brave.

  79. I’m encouraged!
    Just think, two years ago it would have been impossible to even suggest in MSM that maybe AGW was a farce. Now for every layer of whitewash that gets slaped on the CRU, in the public mind theres a little bit more doubt forming. Its a long hard road but at least were starting to see the beginnings of sanity in Climate Science starting to show its ankles.

  80. There must be an exchange in the top personnel at UEA Climate Reasrch Unit with some scientists with some scrupples and integrity, GISS is in the same boat. That is a must if DoE is to continue any further funding! A congressional investigation seems appropriate at this time.

    If some sort of balance between the two major science mindsets is never struck in employment of climate personnel at high levels, all following money might as well be flushed down the drain.

  81. [Snip. Please read the site Policy. Calling others “deniers” is not welcome here. ~dbs, mod.]

  82. Kforestcat @ 1:58 PM

    Thank you for that analysis. I don’t think we know which way the DoE is going to jump on this. The politics is labyrinthine, but much of their process must be open, so subject to challenge in courts and elsewhere. How the DoE treats this will have a lot to do with the EPA endangerment finding. As far as I’m concerned, it’s open season and many cards are wild. Yoicks.
    =======

  83. Jon Rom says: July 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    * The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C

    Without the Sun the Earth would have a temperature of about 3 Kelvin. So…

    * The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07 Kelvin above the 20th century average of 286.45 Kelvin, insignificant.

    Using a water centric scale for a platentary body temperature is oh so human.

  84. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Latitude:
    All deniers hate math. That’s why they are so bad at it.
    ref: MacIntyre
    McKittrick
    Goddard
    ==========================================================

    John, thanks for acting exactly like what you are……..

  85. Looks like the CRU is going to need a bigger shredder.

    Anyone know whether using free email services, such as gmail, which Doug Keenan said that British researchers were now doing to avoid FOI requests, is legal in the US? (Or the UK for that matter).

  86. Why in the heck is the American government giving money to a foreign government’s research institution to begin with? Are the Brits broke? Oh, wait… never mind.

  87. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Latitude:

    All deniers hate math. That’s why they are so bad at it.
    ref: MacIntyre
    McKittrick
    Goddard
    ——-
    REPLY:
    John, thank you for your comment. As long as I’ve read and contributed to WUWT, I’ve rarely seen posting by out & out “deniers” (which is a derogatory and defaming label).

    Nearly all of us are proud skeptics with varying levels of math and science training. I have an extensive background in statistics and find MacIntyre’s many analyses to be compelling in the extreme.

    The Hockey Team, meanwhile, goes “uhhh, hmmmm, STATISTICS??”

    Please call us skeptics, we wear the label with pride.

  88. Michael says: July 18, 2010 at 11:33 am
    It’s about time. The complete and total economic collapse of the US will take care of the rest of the scam artists.—–Wasn’t it those guys who were shredding data?

    Michael. Well, I think you got it in one – except you can add the UK and Europe’s economic collapse to it as well – BTW – like your video clip on the shredding. Thems are the babies wot are doin’ us – big time.

    Doug

  89. Michael says: July 18, 2010 at 11:33 am
    It’s about time. The complete and total economic collapse of the US will take care of the rest of the scam artists.—–Wasn’t it those guys who were shredding data?

    Michael. Well, I think you got it in one – except you can add the UK and Europe’s economic collapse to it as well – BTW like your video clip on the shredding. Thems are the babies wot are doin’ us – big time.

    Doug

  90. Andrew30 says:
    July 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Using a water centric scale for a platentary body temperature is oh so human.

    Since weather and climate are very dependent on water, it actually does make since.

  91. I thought the World Meterological Association was redoing the temperature record — though they were careful to say, on the basis of zero evidence no less, that they expected it would come out the same as before.

    Should someone therefore write to the DEA and point this out and suggest that the funding should be redirected there — since the basic task has also been redirected there.

  92. Climate scientists are even worse than used car salesman.

    At least you know before hand when a Used Car salesman opens his mouth he is lying, and that he has wound the odometer back…but we had to work it out that the so called scientists had wound the thermometers up.

    But who would have thought that the climate scientists were so incompetent at maintaining the temp recording stations that they bolt them to buildings…and to make matters worse were corrupting the peer review process

    Not that it matters in the case of the Peer Review …only the truly dopey would still use a system invented in the 18th century, and try and defend it as being still valid today. Is there anything these dopes haven’t stuffed up and misused.

    I reckon Used Car salesman have a higher standards than these [snip].

  93. John McManus says:
    July 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    No. $200,00 is not $4m. Even a rolling 3 year $200,000 is not $4m.

    It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract.

    The key phrase in that sentence, assuming the information is accurate, is ‘a year.’ The way it is written it sounds that while contract is renewed every three years, the payment is made yearly.

  94. I was disappointed that there has been no mention of the “Harry_read_me.txt” file that was released with the e-mails.

    I still wonder about a “very artificial correction” in some of the programs and what the original data, if it had not been lost, would have looked like when gone through the CRU programs.

  95. In another climate news story last week, The New York Times environmental journalist Andrew Revkin was interviewed about climategate – and the alleged lack thereof – on the American National Public Radio by their science correspondent Ira Flato, in “Climate Scientists Move Forward After Scandal-Revkin.”
    The screeching need to minimize damage from the scandal as per the British Enquiries would not be brooked! AGW critics and skeptics are the equivalent of Young Earthers who cannot be moved to Believe in evolution by any mountain of evidence; the rest are conspiracy mongers.

    Needless to say, no evidence was offered; nor were any climategate emails quoted or discussed in a program purportedly about them.

    Perhaps the most anoying comment from Revkin was an ‘ends justifies the means’ explanation for the revelations of misbehavior and scientists turned political advocates.

    “Mr. REVKIN: Yeah. I mean, to me, one of the real problems that really has emerged, you know, in covering this so long – I mean, you and I both, we -getting to be graybeards in this realm – that I think that many scientists have gotten very frustrated with the lack of traction for the – they see this body of information building and the public isn’t moving and policymakers, or the treaty makers, are just sort of sitting on their hands. And there’s this growing sense of frustration. So that has led, for sure, sometimes, to oversimplification. And to scientists, also, increasingly getting into the advocacy realm, you know, not just telling what is, but telling us what we should do.”

    Does he really mean science fudging, hiding data, and group-think dogmas are OK if the cause is ‘Right’?

    Audio and transcript here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128568245

  96. Bet if we raised the voting age to 55 and put term limits in the Constitution we wouldn’t see any more of this waste in department spending bills.

  97. Has anyone else noticed? Uncle Sam seems to have the same big-spending and no-saving habits as todays kids (the 15-30 something mob). Wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg? Bet it was Sam.

    PS: Have to admit, the kids didn’t have all the advantages we had. What with newspapers going belly up, and adults delivering them with their cars, there haven’t been as many paper routes as there used to be. And I don’t think they let kids work in drug stores anymore delivering prescriptions and stocking shelves.

  98. “Environment quangos to be cut, says Caroline Spelman”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10676997

    Defra – department for environment, food and rural affairs

    “Ms Spelman told Sky News that Defra had 87 quangos, with some set up decades ago to protect the environment or rural communities” I believe the CRU could be described as a Quango.

  99. @James Sexton
    “BTW, you should peruse this site and familiarize yourself with the temp gathering techniques employed by NOAA, and then also familiarize yourself with the data manipulation NOAA and other climate tracking bodies engage in. Their credibility is stretched beyond its limits.”

    Yes, James, I HAVE looked at it, for a long time (and my IQ is 146 so I actually understand some of it) and, you know what? You guys are a lot better than me at doing climate science. I feel I would need an advanced degree to really contribute anything, or to arrive at an independent judgment.

    But at the same time, the scientists who are convinced of AGW are also a lot better at climate science than me. And when something like 97% (I know, I know…) of climate scientists support the AGW interpretation, what gives?

    Now I completely understand the argument that the ~97% are biased because of certain rewards that may come with that position, but there are also rewards (although different) associated with being a skeptic. So if you want to throw out the ~97 AGW scientists, you damn well better throw out the ~3 skeptics too, right? Babies with the warm bathwater, so to speak.

    As I said, I am not a scientist but I have been working directly with scientist for over 30 years (I design research labs). I think they are almost all really smart and usually dedicated and mostly devoted (in an almost religious way) to documented evidence and the truth, as revealed by the scientific method. No other client type so repeatedly asks me for “proof” of the benefits of a proposed design. It is a PITA frankly. But it certainly has convinced me that scientists don’t take a position, or arrive at a belief, lightly.

    My problem is that, from my experience, I can’t discount all of them. There are a whole bunch of really smart and extremely dedicated and truly knowledgeable people who find on the side of AGW. Even if we throw out a huge and unlikely ~50% of them, it is still >10:1 for AGW.

    Convince me otherwise, please. I am not a closed-minded person.

  100. James Sexton says:
    July 18, 2010 at 8:59 am
    It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract.

    This is only part of the story James. Your DoE certainly funded Jones et al / CRU in the 1980’s – see the 1986 doc below – for the Southern Hemisphere TR027 DoE report the contract was No. DE-AC02-79EV10098.
    See my articles below – I have never been able to discover the annual $ amounts pre-1995. Looking at published papers and allowing time for pre-pub research – IMHO DoE funding of Jones et al / CRU could have commenced as early as 1979. So you are looking at a DoE in the Carter era – does anybody have any ideas who in the DoE over 30 years ago now – was instrumental in awarding these contracts to Jones et al / CRU ?

    Is the US Dept of Energy still funding Professor Phil Jones ?
    February 2nd, 2010
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=479
    Needless to say – your DoE does not reply to my faxed questions this year.

    USA Dept of Energy Jones et al 1986 350 pages station documentation now online in pdf February 20th, 2010
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=510

    I agree with those who say the DoE will resume funding after a while.

  101. @ john Rom

    Please cite your source that “something like 97% (I know, I know…) of climate scientists support the AGW interpretation”

  102. And when something like 97% (I know, I know…) of climate scientists support the AGW interpretation, what gives?

    We’ve been through this several times before. Here is the most recent response:

    Richard M says:
    July 7, 2010 at 5:37 am

    … the 97% number includes all those that believe that CO2 causes some warming. That includes Lindzen and about 95% of all skeptics. That’s right, most of the people who post here also fall into the 97% number. The number you fail to understand is that ONLY 41% believe in the “C” in CAGW. And, the survey itself was taken before ClimateGate so I’d expect that number would be less today.

  103. Gentlemen

    On closer inspection, it looks like the DOE was supply far more in grant funds than the $200,000/year the DOE indicated it suspended. So your $4.0 million estimate is probably too low. A review of the climate gate e-mails shows the Department of Energy Office of Science – Chicago Office – supplyed $1.5 to $1.7 million in FY 2007/2008 alone.

    As evidence see the May 7 12:42:32 2008 e-mail (File Name 1210178552.text) entitled “Request for Cost Date for DOE Grant”. In this e-mail, the UEA’s Office Supervisor for Finance Research, Mrs. Sandra Carter, indicates to Dr. Jones that the EAU had, to 7 May 2008, received for the DOE $1,589,632 in FY 2007/2008 grant money. Against what appears to be a total spent of $1,744,130 as of 30 April 2008.

    An additional $58,880 was expected to be spent in April to June 08 time frame and an additional $47,190 to be spent in the July to September 2008 time frame.

    The amounts of DOE grant money the EAU spent on staff and travel is frankly astonishing – see details in the e-mail. At a typical $100,000/yr for a full time equivalent (FTE) for each employee, this level of funding is enough to support 15-17 full time employees for a full fiscal year.

    My review of the climate gate e-mails also showed that Dr. Jones wasn’t too eager for the U.S. Congress to know that both he and Tom Wigley had been receiving substantial amounts of DOE grant money for 25 years. See Filename 1120676865.txt where it states:

    xxxxxxxxx

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Neville Nicholls”
    Subject: RE: Misc
    Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

    Neville,
    Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
    almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
    there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
    years.
    I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
    Cheers
    Phil

    xxxxxxxxx

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

Comments are closed.