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
200 grand ayear is nothing as fas as funding for a major institution goes…..it’s insignificant…..a book keeping error…..
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The DOE would be wise to launch their own investigation. Funding CRU in light of clear violation of FOI requests should raise alarm bells.
CRU Funding
Scroll down to bottom of page and find fossil fuel and nuclear companies hard at work for their shareholders.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
These are the shameless climate scientists who will take money from anyone including the fossil fuel industry and nuclear generation and waste disposal industry. This is hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CRU Seeks Big Oil And Big Business Cash
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt
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.
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.
[Snip. Please read the site Policy. Calling others “deniers” is not welcome here. ~dbs, mod.]
Kforestcat @ur momisugly 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.
=======
I will have a beer on that may be two
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.