US DOE apparently funded CRU millions, not $200K as reported

UPDATE: The cumulative total is over 2 million USD, the $200k yearly number is generally correct, but varies year to year, see more below. Also, a list of funders to CRU has been added. – Anthony

Climategate email 1210178552.txt

In the story DOE Funding For CRU Placed On Hold it was reported about the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that:

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.

Some enterprising commenters at WUWT have found evidence in the Climategate emails that the $200K figure may be low, or just one part of a multi-part contract. See below.

UPDATE: Excel file from CRU tells the story and cumulative total, see below:

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

Kforestcat says:
July 20, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Gentlemen

On closer inspection, it looks like the DOE was to 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

h/t to WUWT reader Eric Dailey

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

From Verity Jones in comments:

From an Excel file released with the emails in November. US DOE Funding only:

Funding Source, Investigators, Grant Title, Funding, Start Date, End Date

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of CO2 induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £540,956, original start date 01/12/90 £128,000 01/03/1995 29/02/1996

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £672,956, original start date 01/12/90 £132,000 01/03/1996 28/02/1997

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £797,956, original start date 01/12/90 £125,000 01/03/1997 28/02/1998

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £99,555 01/05/1998 30/04/1999

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change (Suppl.) £102,752 01/05/1999 30/04/2000

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £106,151 01/05/2000 30/04/2001

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data and analysis from the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £212,500 01/05/2001 30/04/2003

US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate Data and Analysis – Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change. – Supp awarded £88,756 – 30.3.06 £262,629 01/05/2004 30/05/2006

Yep – including the ‘Cum total’ from 1990 figures that’s about £1.5M. Graph of total funding in this blog post:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/fellowship-of-the-tree-rings-an-immoral-tale/

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

Note: £1.5M is 2.278 million U.S. dollars

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

UPDATE:

Partial list of CRU funders

Source:  CRU

Below is a partial list of funders for the Climatic Research Unit of climategate fame.  These organizations and companies funded Phil Jones and the CRU division of the “hockey stick team.”  Notice all the major international oil companies, leftist NGOs and self-interested governments — none of which climate alarmists mention when questioning funding of climate realists.

“This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):”

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “US DOE apparently funded CRU millions, not $200K as reported

  1. CRU couldn’t find enough money to buy a decent archive system or even a little bit of quality control. All that first class travel to expensive locations like Tahiti soon empties the coffers.

  2. They had a high burn rate for funding. I notice they were drawn to Big Oil funding also.
    It is expensive for the Climate ruling class to attend Copenhagen, parties and new friends etc. Obama says let them ride bikes.

  3. Someone get us a link to the investigation and the grant application. Mosh will do the temperature indexes for 50K/year

  4. I remember some one who was asking *me* (of all people ) very specifically whether I was willing to donate money to the CRU to provide for archiving data that the skeptics were clamoring after.

    I’ve hosted some scraps of html on free servers on the Internet from the late 90s and it cost me the simple annoyance of running some ads on those pages. They are still around.

  5. The Virginia AG is doing a financial review. Mis appropriation of funds is very common where there are other mis deeds and short comings in business practices. All the trips to Siberia to harvest all the trees ads up.

    Sadly this conspicous consumption leaves a huge carbon footprint. alGore has 2 more incidents of unfriending come forward. These things happen when there is heavy travel and speaking is in great demand.
    The DOE also buys a lot of bandwidth since all the busy bees also watch a lot of porn in their cube farms.
    Jones is afraid for his safety. Does he need a limo, driver and body guard? Mucho expensive.

  6. I can’t believe he said:
    “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.”

    This is an outrageous.

  7. No wonder UAE wants to keep Jones if he brings in that sort of money. The Vice-chancellor probably makes Jones’ coffee every moring and polishes his shoes!

  8. The relevancy of this request might be the following statement by Phil Jones, then Director of the CRU, to his friend Neville Nicholls of Australia, regarding his relationship with the DOE (File No. 1120676865.txt, dated July 6, 2005):

    I hope I don’t get a call from [the United States C]ongress ! 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.
    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d15-Significance-of-DOE-litigation-hold

    Sen Inhofe is trying to get reports also. Didn’t Mark Morano work there?

  9. Can’t all of this be determined with an FOIA request to CRU asking “show us the money?”

    And a second one to the U.S. DoE Office of Biological & Environmental Research asking “Show us anything about funding given to CRU from 1980 to current.”

  10. Naive question here.

    Why is the US Department of Energy sending money to foreign universities?

  11. Up to now I’ve been charitable and assumed that the climate catastrophe perception was simply caused by altruistic and concerned individuals allowing their imaginations to run away with them as a side effect of their professional enthusiasm.

    This points to something rather more venal.

  12. After Climategate.

    Endeavors to fleece the flock have become more fragile after the Climategate incident. Had Jones been found in error or guilty of bad efferts, this revenuue stream was in great danger.

  13. Dave Springer says:
    July 21, 2010 at 11:44 am

    “Naive question here.

    Why is the US Department of Energy sending money to foreign universities?”

    I asked a similar question on the first article. Can’t the Brits pay for their own propaganda machine? Maybe the Brits are funding GISS as payback? I don’t know what smells, but it stinks to high heavens. I don’t know how or why this is significant, but when people start doing unusual things with money and state they don’t want people to find out about their sources of income, illegal activity is nearby. As has been stated often, follow the money, only this time, it really needs checked by real investigators.

  14. The more I think of this, the more miffed I get. Calling congressman to demand full accounting.

  15. Well, well, well. No wonder Jones didn’t want to share the data. It had already been bought and paid for…

  16. Am I wrong that CRUTem is a “value added” product that commercial clients have been paying for?

  17. John from CA @ July 21, 2010 at 11:18 am
    I can’t believe he said:
    “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 hope he gets a call from theVirgina AG :-)

  18. Run, run, run from DEMON OIL, that shameless wretch who craves your soul!
    Oil is the DEVIL – it strangles the earth, pollutes our shores, creates unrest!
    So run to houses with the AC on, run to cars while their motors hum,
    Run to factories that make our things using coal and gas and a gust of wind,
    Run, run, run from PETROLEUM, never stop, never slow, ’cause he’ll get you, son!
    But truth be told, now, lets be fair – you can’t run from OIL – it’s EVERYWHERE.

    ©2010 Dave Stephens

    I’m coming to the sad conclusion that at some point just about everything essential to life or commerce will be demonized for political gain, that is, if it already hasn’t been…

  19. Many commenters think the DoE action is a set up for a whitewash, but I can’t help but wonder if it is a fight between Chu and Jackson. There’s a lot of money and power at stake in this business, as both of them see it.
    ==============

  20. I can’t believe that little bitty building, and those few employees cost that much.

    Do the Brits give them any money at all?

  21. The question that comes to my mind, as to others, is – why would the US government pay a UK university department to carry out work which it could easily get done by its own researchers in the USA? What benefit were they getting? I am sure the US Congress and Senate will want answers.

  22. I want my damn money back, Dr. Jones! And your head on a platter! Well, not your real head, but close.

  23. Contrary to many views being expressed here, can I make it clear that the problem with the CRU was not too much money being spent on climate monitoring, but far too little.

    Honestly, you can’t both criticise the CRU for their abysmal failure to obtain a monitoring network that measures anything other than the amount of tarmac in the vicinity and then complain they are spending too little.

    I used to be put up weather monitoring stations commercially, and we used to charge £10-20k for the station (1k approx for the equipment). Then someone would charge another 10k on top of that to analyse the data.

    For a station network of 3000 units (excluding worldwide travel) that is a total of some 30million for monitoring and 30million for equipment — and the equipment I’m talking about was primarily intended for wind monitoring and temperature recording was a very poor second rate measurement. To get equipment accurate to 0.05C and to monitor and maintain sites would add considerably to that overall cost.

    So basically, the 4million is at least one order of magnitude too low, if Jones had the faintest clue what he was doing (i.e. was at all professional) he would have had a budget somewhere in the 100s of millions not some mickey mouse outfit at 4million AND THAT IS WHY THE TEMPERATURE DATA IS SO CRAP

  24. Frankly, what Phil Jones said above, basically that he hopes he doesn’t get caught, is utterly despicable, and shows just how much care these people take with public funds – i.e. none.

    It’s especially galling that this is coming from public funds from American taxpayers to pay for a shoddy British research outfit.

    The Muir-Russell report added some useful information for those of us who are computer scientists and interested in the “hacking” allegation:

    Page 101:

    “IT Organisation. In common with other areas of the Science Faculty, CRU [the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia] operates largely independently of the central IS [information systems] functions of the UEA. […] CRU has its own local [computer network] architecture based on a mix of individual PC based and server based processing. In common with many other research groups across the university, this is distinct from the UEA preferred model of client-server operation. Internet communications for CRU is however routed over the university network and through the university firewall. CRU has its own IT Manager for whom CRU is 40% of his workload. CRU originally had no central backup arrangements for the individual researchers’ PCs however its IT Manager introduced automated backup (using open source software) to a simple server held securely within the Central IS machine room.”

    This is an absolutely whacky setup. So we have confirmation that the CRU had its emails routed through a central (likely Exchange) server (normal – and sensible – procedure for a large organisation), but that the researcher’s individual work was NOT backed up for a long period of time. However recently (its not clear when), backups were made to a machine held securely within the central IS room (no idea what they mean by a “simple server” though, eh?).

    This gives us confirmation that the “hacker” – if there was one – was able to access the University of East Anglia’s central IT infrastructure. Yet all of the reports refer to the “hack” of “the CRU server”. If the UEA’s central systems themselves were directly targeted by a hacker, this would be a league of importance above a direct attack on just machines in the CRU; so why isn’t the question ever phrased to reflect this? The “hacker” had to crack two centralised servers – the Exchange server for emails, and the backup “simple server” (wtf?) in order to collate the files we have today. And they did this without sysadmins noticing. IMHO this swings the evidence very firmly towards an insider.

    Also, and with respect to the current thread – it is now clear that they didn’t lack for money. So why the shoddy infrastructure, especially for work that was so expensive, and coming out of the public purses of the U.K. AND U.S. taxpayers? Why did the IT manager opt for an open source solution. I’m a big fan of open source myself, however for a critical backup system if I had the money available I would always use a reliable third party solution as there would then be some kind of external indemnity and accountability for losses. And – why oh why, did they simply not make use of the University’s SAN (Storage Area Network)?

  25. All you people bow down to the ruling class, what are you thinking here? The 1st amendment will be banned soon. The USA is ran by a bunch of lying crooks and if it’s not stopped, we will lose what freedom we still have left.

  26. I suspect the US funds a lot of foreign research, on all sorts of scientific topics. I don’t see that it’s wrong, if there’s a good justification for it. (Of course, we shouldn’t overdo it.)

  27. Hmmmm.

    “Isn’t it a crime to defraud the US Government of money?”

    Actually it is even more amusing than that. There is a federal law on the books for years that allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the US federal government for cases of fraud. If you win you get to keep a portion of the overall settlement plus legal fees while the remainder goes to the US federal government.

    And now there are large aggregate legal firms that pursue these types of cases. So if you have knowledge of fraud and facts to support that … well it’s almost like hitting the lottery.

  28. “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.”

    Is there anybody out there who is sufficiently competent to explain to my simple mind, how this communication can be taken out of context.
    Don’t get me wrong, i know that like all the other innocent e-mails, there is nothing untoward about this particular one, it’s just that i can’t see it.
    Please try and respond with extensive explanations, word by word if necessary because i am obviously in need of deep and profound re-education.
    In oder not to prejudice any reply, i have resisted my intense desire to express my opinion of this e-mail.

  29. I think the numbers are wrong.

    Jones speaks of a “grant” (singular). The instructions specify funding received since the “inception of the grant”. The $1.5 mln is not for FY2007/8, but rather for the “25 years”.

    Note that the work done by the CRU for the DoE fall under the US rules for disclosure and documentation.

    REPLY: That could be, that’s why I said it could be one part of a multi-part grant. Hopefully we can get some info from DOE to determine the totals sent to CRU and when – Anthony

  30. Richard Sharpe: Yes, the law is called the False Claims Act. It is similar to the state law the Va AG is using to investigate Mann’s activities while at the U of Va. The federal law is far reaching and punitive.

  31. Mike Haseler says:
    July 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    “Contrary to many views being expressed here, can I make it clear that the problem with the CRU was not too much money being spent on climate monitoring, but far too little.”…….
    ……….. he would have had a budget somewhere in the 100s of millions not some mickey mouse outfit at 4million AND THAT IS WHY THE TEMPERATURE DATA IS SO CRAP”

    Mike,

    I don’t believe anyone expects the CRU to put temp monitoring stations all over the world. That wasn’t their function. The monitoring stations are already in place. The CRU merely “processed” the data. Further, read the story, the $4 mill was the original estimate used from the earlier reported $200,000/yr for 20 yrs. Apparently, this isn’t the case. The $1,744,000 seems to be the amount for a fiscal year 2007-2008. It is significantly more than 200,000/yr. Further he states, in 2005, he’s had this grant for 25 years. Which, if it is just now being shut off, the CRU or Phil himself has been receiving the money for 30 years total. If the $1.75 million has been consistently paid out over the 30 years, the U.S. taxpayer has paid the CRU/ Phil $52.5 million dollars for the research he’s already being paid to do? Is he an employee of the University? The British government? Or is he a sole employee of the U.S. federal government? It is my impression, but I don’t know for sure, the CRU also had other sources of funding. In any case, I’ve already phoned my senators and congressman asking for a full accounting of the money our government has spent in this matter to the CRU. This could get interesting, notwithstanding the obvious question as to why the U.S. is funding (even partially) a British research unit. Again, I don’t know enough to make an accusation, but when people start playing shell games with money, accountants and lawyers and in this case lawmakers, should be alerted.

  32. John from CA @ July 21, 2010 at 11:18 am
    [I can’t believe he said:
    “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.”]

    Watch out!! Here come the usual conspiracy theorists. There is a pretty obvious explanation for this email. Jones wrote this email in 2005 during a Bush era government that was anti anything to do with climate change research. The statement was made in jest and was directed at the fact a government department (DoE) was funding something that its own government failed to give a hoot about.

    So be careful with your allegations of “Fraud” etc that your are throwing aroud at Phil Jones. Applying the “Monckton test” for libel and slander (which covers just about anything) it just might land WUWT in court for republishing defamatory statements.

    MJK

  33. “The story we are about to hear is true; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.”

    You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Will the DoE disclose the facts?

    “All we want is the facts ma’am, just the facts.”

  34. From link above:

    …I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious…

  35. Criminal!! I’m all for scientific research but much of it is wasteful…case and point right here. I’ve always earned a paycheck all my life so I don’t know what it is like to get “grant” money, but it seems so shameful. Just like politicians and the freebees they recieve. It’s really quite appalling.

  36. mjk says:
    July 21, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    “[…]Watch out!! Here come the usual conspiracy theorists. There is a pretty obvious explanation for this email. Jones wrote this email in 2005 during a Bush era government that was anti anything to do with climate change research.[…]”

    Ignoring the fact that you’re not making much sense, don’t forget that Bush gave us Rajendra K. Pachauri.

  37. Mike Haseler says:
    “[…] the problem with the CRU was not too much money being spent on climate monitoring, but far too little. […] AND THAT IS WHY THE TEMPERATURE DATA IS SO CRAP.”

    No, the reason the temperature data is so crap is that the raw data was tweaked by fudge factors iteratively arrived at to make it appear that the world is getting hotter.

  38. Kim says:

    “Many commenters think the DoE action is a set up for a whitewash, but I can’t help but wonder if it is a fight between Chu and Jackson. There’s a lot of money and power at stake in this business, as both of them see it.”

    I am wondering if Chu is not going under the bus. Obama’s hoping that the oil spill will go away but it won’t. Solution? Throw Chu under the bus. He did make decisions that merit the action.
    Jackson sits in an equally unstable seat. I bet she’s having a party tonight now that there will not be a debate on Senate Cap’n Trade before recess. I think a real debate would put Jackson under the bus. Remember that Obama is the champion under-the-bus thrower of all time. That record is established. (Sherrod was dragged from under the bus.)

  39. NIH has a searchable database of grants, grantees, and their institutions. A quick search of the DOE doesn’t let me find such for this agency. Question is what have they got to hide? [no need to answer that question]

  40. mjk:
    The conspiracist paranoia directed at the Bush Government (and I am no supporter of the Bush government) is ok, but asking questions about CRU funding in the context of it being held up is ‘conspiracy’?

    Are you aware of the whipping up of anti-Bush sentiments within the scientific community practised by Don Kennedey and others during the same period? The moment a government asks questions of climate scientists, it becomes ‘anti-green’, anti-environment etc?

    Maybe it is just a hold-up because the EPA will take over funding the CRU?

  41. Looking at the e-mail with a bit of context by following the link given above I found this: I thought Mike Mann’s draft response was pretty good – I had expected something more
    vigorous, but I think he has got the “tone” pretty right. Do you expect to get a call
    from Congress?

    So it looks like Congress had asked Mann to draft something and Jones was hoping that Congress wouldn’t be bugging him too. As far as I can see, that is a perfectly normal reaction from a scientist or any normal person. Who really wants to interact with politicians?

  42. From an Excel file released with the emails in November. US DOE Funding only:

    Funding Source, Investigators, Grant Title, Funding, Start Date, End Date

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of CO2 induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £540,956, original start date 01/12/90 £128,000 01/03/1995 29/02/1996

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £672,956, original start date 01/12/90 £132,000 01/03/1996 28/02/1997

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Detection of greenhouse gas induced climate change (Suppl.) – cum. total £797,956, original start date 01/12/90 £125,000 01/03/1997 28/02/1998

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £99,555 01/05/1998 30/04/1999

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change (Suppl.) £102,752 01/05/1999 30/04/2000

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES Climate data analysis and models for the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £106,151 01/05/2000 30/04/2001

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate data and analysis from the study of natural variability and anthropogenic change £212,500 01/05/2001 30/04/2003

    US DEPT OF ENERGY Prof PD JONES, Prof TML WIGLEY Climate Data and Analysis – Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change. – Supp awarded £88,756 – 30.3.06 £262,629 01/05/2004 30/05/2006

    Yep – including the ‘Cum total’ from 1990 figures that’s about £1.5M. Graph of total funding in this blog post:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/fellowship-of-the-tree-rings-an-immoral-tale/

  43. DirkH says:
    July 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Sorry Dirk, you must have missed last week’s thread in which Monckton threatened legal proceedings against John Abraham for some pretty harmless statements.

    PS I did get a good laugh at your post though.

  44. DoE
    http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601

    P/CH–FG02-98ER62601

    CLIMATE DATA ANALYSIS AND MODELS FOR THE STUDY OF NATURAL VARIABILITY AND ANTHRPOGENIC CHANGE

    P.D. JONES

    UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
    2007 KP1206000 SC $199,570.00
    2006 KP1201010 SC $177,511.00
    2005 KP1201010 SC $174,777.00
    2004 KP1201010 SC $172,967.00
    2003 KP1201010 SC $180,000.00
    2002 KP0000000 SC $180,000.00
    2001 KP0000000 SC $180,000.00
    2000 KP0000000 SC $180,456.00
    1999 KP0000000 SC $174,678.00
    1998 KP1201010 ER $169,243.00

  45. Why not just look at the ledger: junkscience.com/FOIA/documents/pdj_grant_since1990.xls

    Not sure if it is the “official” record keeping ledger but it seems mostly complete.

  46. James;
    Apparently the most important function of the CRU was to decide which weather stations not to pay attention to, like those in Siberia, the Canadian Arctic, Andes mountains, etc. And how to finesse a UHI adjustment into an INCREASE in the affected stations’ raw reported temps.

    Hard work, but someone had to do it! :D

  47. Why would the US government be paying a group of British scientists?

    Clearly, the US could spend that money domestically for the same result. Right?

    Wrong. Spending that money on foreign scientists ensures that they stay on the same page as NOAA, etc. Which of course calls into question the ‘independence’ of Hadley CRU.

  48. mjk says:
    July 21, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    “[…]PS I did get a good laugh at your post though.”

    I didn’t miss it; what didn’t make sense in your comment is “here come the conspiracy theorists”. You must have missed climategate.

  49. There are tid bite scattered thru the emails.

    rom: Ben Santer
    To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Re: averaging
    Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
    Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Cc: Tom Wigley , kevin trenberth

    Dear Lisa,

    That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
    of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
    will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
    strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
    the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
    expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
    travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

    1230052094.txt

  50. IN 2005, as reported at CA here, the US DOE told Warwick Hughes the following:

    Subject: Re: Station data required for 1856-2004 Jones et al
    Dear Warwick,

    Unfortunately, our data center does not have any of the six requested items. You will need to contact Phil directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items to CDIAC. I regret we cannot furnish the materials you seek.

    Regards,
    Tom Boden
    Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  51. DirkH says:
    July 21, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    mjk says:
    July 21, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    “[…]PS I did get a good laugh at your post though.”

    “I didn’t miss it; what didn’t make sense in your comment is “here come the conspiracy theorists”. You must have missed climategate.”

    Forgive mjk, he’s in denial. The e-mails show conspiracies beyond doubt. Yet, he goes on about how absurd it is to think there is a conspiracy. They conspired to manipulate the peer-review process, caused people to lose livelihoods, ect. Nope, nothing to see, move along folks. Inquiries that rely on evidence from the accused transgressor. Nope no conspiracy at all, except for the fact they conspired to do such acts. Move along.

  52. Schiller Thurkettle says:
    July 21, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    “Why would the US government be paying a group of British scientists?
    Clearly, the US could spend that money domestically for the same result. Right?
    Wrong. Spending that money on foreign scientists ensures that they stay on the same page as NOAA, etc. Which of course calls into question the ‘independence’ of Hadley CRU.”

    No doubt, two independent groups that used the same data and funding. Today, I’ve asked 3 members of congress to look into the matter and require a full accounting of the money.

    It seems to me, instead of buying overpriced dinners, the CRU could have used Uncle Sam’s sugar to buy a few decent servers to ensure data preservation.

  53. Blimey with that sort of money coming in you think they could tart up the round house a bit – some gold leaf perhaps to help keep it cool in Summer? In fact why not get a grant for that alone?

    Although you would also need some more money for guards to stop the pesky students taking some..

    And money to keep it clean..

    And money for equipment to measure the effects..

    And money to measure the effects on buildings close by (second hand heating..)..

    And money to archive the measurements..

    And money to stay in the Ritz whilst all this is set up to avoid disruption to the important grant chasing …. <<< erm research work!

  54. mjk says:
    July 21, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    ummmmm you did check the dates on those grants yes? Who was president then?

    >shakes head<

  55. Re: Jones not wanting his DoE grant known
    mjk writes:
    #The statement was made in jest#

    This ‘Comic Relief’ defence is rapidly becoming the new Warmist explanation for all kinds of nasty behaviour exposed by Climategate.

  56. It has been known for sometime now that they’re really cheap bastards, but my God, is there no limit to their scam-scape?

  57. Mike Haseler says:
    July 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Contrary to many views being expressed here, can I make it clear that the problem with the CRU was not too much money being spent on climate monitoring, but far too little….
    ________________________________________

    Mike, the point is that is MY money, why the heck was it not spent in MY country!

    A pew report on farming showed $1 spent on a family farm multiplied to $7 after it flowed through the community. I imagine the same is true for universities. So why wasn’t MY taxes dollars used to stimulate MY country’s economy instead of the UK’s? It isn’t like we are an illiterate third world country.

  58. I don’t know why you guys are surprised. ;-)

    A sous-chef gets paid for preparing the raw materials. They trim, peel, cut, splice and sweep together offal to use as stuffing. Then they season, stuff and cook to get rid of any unpleasant effects. Finally, they creatively lay the food on a plate, adding sauces, etc and wiping up any inconvenient spillage from the plate.

    There’s not much difference between the “leading climate institutes” and a very expensive restaurant. At a very high cost, they deliver what the customer ordered, regardless of the raw material.

  59. It is this funding that has corrupted climate scientists and made them do away with much of the scientific method and lambast one of the pillars of science: scepticism.

    This is why when “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment” climate scientists indeed do manipulate data (warm red dots over non-existant temp stations). This is why many former coolists of the 1970s turned to global warming alarmism and tried to “offer up some scary scenarios” etc.

    Climate scientist today know that the weather is about to change so they become evermore hysterical and end their papers with “more research needs to be done” ie “when do I get my next load of cash.” I’m glad WUWT and other sites rub their lying noses in it daily.

  60. Here a little extra cash that CRU has received. Is it any surprise that they resisted FOI requests. If the truth came out they might see a stop in funding. If the weather cools over the next 3 decades the whole house of cards will collapse.

    CRU funding received from:
    British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre (Food to Ethanol)
    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Eastern Electricity
    KFA Germany (Nuclear)
    Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
    National Power
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
    Shell (Oil, LNG)
    Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
    Tate and Lyle. (Food to Ethanol)
    UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
    Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    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

  61. Now does everyone see why I can’t afford the tip jar here? I am too busy marching at the point of the government gun that mandates that I tip Phil Jones’ jar. I am the broke taxpayer. I am the slave that pays for this bullshit.

  62. So why wasn’t MY taxes dollars used to stimulate MY country’s economy instead of the UK’s? It isn’t like we are an illiterate third world country.

    Umm, we might be.

  63. Hmpff. You don’t suppose the DOE is looking to hit CRU up for a refund, eh?
    After seeing what went on, if I were DOE, I’d want my money back too.

  64. Stop the funding of glowbull warming/anthropogenic greenhouse gas climate change for a while.

    Money would be better spent on volcano monitoring. There’s where you will find the real answers to warmings and coolings. Study also needs to be done on links of volcanic activity and solar activity. It sure looks to me like the lower the solar maximums and the deeper the minima, the more eruption volume. The reverse when the maximum and minimum are higher… less eruption volume.

    Some of these gasses tear ozone up and change the characteristics of the atmosphere, such as reflectivity and humidity for examples.

  65. Gail Combs says:
    July 21, 2010 at 6:26 pm (Edit)
    So why wasn’t MY taxes dollars used to stimulate MY country’s economy instead of the UK’s? It isn’t like we are an illiterate third world country.

    Because an argumnt is more convincing if it comes from several sources. This tactic has been used many and oft times by the IPCC over the years.

  66. Gentlemen

    It appears that I was partially in error. Specifically I was wrong to state that that the $1.5-1.7 million was a FY 2007-2008 expenditure. These were cumulative year expenditures, not a single year expenditure. Mr. Richard Tol is credited for setting me straight and is to be credited for his fine attention to detail. To the extent my error has been been misleading, I apologize.

    However, it also appears that the UEA’s cumulative figures are not accurate in the May 7, 2008, e-mail. Roughly $200 K appears to be missing from the UEA figures. (I am NOT suggesting fraud – I’ll get to this).

    Richard’s comment first. In Richard’s comment of July 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm (see above), Richard was quite right to point out that it is not clear that the $1.5-1.7 million figure was a single year 2007/2008 expenditure. Late this afternoon I researched further, based on the input and additioal resources provided by the fine contributors above. Upon the collection of additional facts, It’s clear I misinterpreted the May 7, 2008, e-mail.

    I had interpreted the words :
    ” Received to date 1,589,632.00
    2007/08″
    To mean the UEA’s $1,589,632 figure was a 2007/2008 expenditure. It now clearer that it was not and that this was likely a FY 1998-2006 cumulative expenditure. More on the cumulative figure later – there is a problem with it.

    The clue to this being a multi-year cumulative figure is in the DOE instructions at the far bottom of the May 7, 2008, e-mail thread which reads:

    xxxxx

    A. Providing Cumulative Cost Data:

    For most of the awards administered by the Office of Science – Chicago Office, there is
    a financial reporting requirement to submit cost data on the Financial Status Report
    (SF-269) at the end of the project period. Currently, there is no requirement for you
    to submit cost data on a more frequent basis. However, in order to achieve our goal of
    improving the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of our financial information, the
    Departments external independent auditors have insisted that we confirm cumulative cost balances with Grantees that have received significant financial assistance monies at least annually. For each grant award listed, we request that you provide the following….:

    1.Cumulative actual Cost through March 31, 2008
    (from inception of the award):

    xxxxx

    I had missed the words “from the inception of the award” and had jumped to the conclusion that this was a cumulative FY 2008 figure – believing, in part, the auditors referenced would be solely interested in cumulative current fiscal year expenditures.
    Taking a much closer look at the e-mail suggests the UEA was expecting to spend $260,000 in FY 2007/2008 (i.e. FY 2008) per the calculations below:

    Total Expected 2007/2008 Expenditure (FY 2008)
    FY 2008 to date $154,498 (Assuming Oct ’07 – March ’08)
    April-June ’08 $58,880
    July-Sept ’08 $47,190
    FY 2008 Total $260,568

    This would square with the UEAs totals to date figures quoted in the e-mail when viewed as follows:
    Received to date $1,589,632 (presumably FY 1998 thru FY 2007)
    FY 2008 to date $154,498 (presumably 1 Oct 2007 thru end of March ’08)
    Total to date $1,744,130 (assuming FY 1998 thru the of March ’08)

    The UEA’s $1,589,632 “Received to Data” figure above also squares with known Jones grant expenditures from FY 1998 to 2006. See data table below per Mr. James Sexton’s comment [18 July, 2010] where Mr. Sexton references details in known UEA grant expenditures from 1995 to 2006 at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=479. Other’s contributors figures also square with the FY 1998-2006 figures for the Jones grant account. Specifically see Martyn above on July 21, 2010 at 2:40 pm.

    Jones, k $ Wigley, k $
    FY 2006 $178 Na
    FY 2005 $175 Na
    FY 2004 $173 Na
    FY 2003 $180 Na
    FY 2002 $180 Na
    FY 2001 $180 Na
    FY 2000 $180 Na
    FY 1999 $174 -$3
    FY 1998 $170 Na
    FY 1997 Na $200
    FY 1996 Na $198
    FY 1995 Na $192
    Total $1,590 $587

    However, there appears to be an unexplained anomaly in the UEA’s cumulative to date figures for the Jones account (prior to FY 2008). U.S. Government fiscal years run from Oct thru September of the following year. For example FY 2008 would be the time frame from 1 October 2007 thru 31 September 2008. The $1,590 k figure cumulative figure quoted for the Jones account, by the UEA in May 2008, would be correct if the UEA was quoting a FY 1998-2006 cumulative figure. However, the e-mail was written in FY 2008 (i.e., May 7, 2008). The UEA’s cumulative figure should be quoting a FY 1998-2007 cumulative figure. More plainly, the FY 2007 grant expenditure appears to be is missing from the UEA’s $1,589,632 cumulative to date figure.

    Mr. Martyn comment above has indicated, the FY 2007 figure should be $199,570. See Mr. Martyn’s referencing of the DOE site http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601. It appears, from these DOE’s records, that the UEA’s FY 1998-2007 cumulative figure should be $1,589,632 + $199,570 = $1,789,202. Not the $1,589,632 quoted in the UEA’s May 7, 2008, e-mail.

    Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting fraud. The UEA finance officer may have simply overlooked the FY 2007 expenditures when she wrote the e-mail. An understandable error in situations where a hasty response is occuring. Certainly the DOE has not lost the missing $199,570 in its figures. However, the cumulative “to date” FY 1988-2007 figures quoted by UEA in the May 7, 2008, e-mail do not appear to be correct.

    Please note the know grant totals spent from 1995 thru FY 2007, based on the above, are:

    Jones Account 1998-2007 $2.177 million.
    Wigley Account 1995-1999 $0.587 million
    Total of above $2.377 million.

    Also note the above total is certainly not comprehensive. As indicated in Mr. Verity Jone’s comment above, other grants appear to have been issued . As Mr. Verity Jones figures are in pounds I have not attempted to correlate where any overlap may exist.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat (Dave)

  67. @Gail Combs/Jeff Alberts/Tallbloke
    The US government has a strong preference for spending its research money in the USA, and there are in fact rules and regulations that make it rather difficult to divert money abroad. The only exception is when there is no domestic expertise, and even then the amounts are tiny (relative to the research budget of DoE in this case). In 1990, CRU was the only group in the world who did this kind of research, so they got a small annual grant.

  68. Anthony,

    I am a little confused on the ’emails’ front. I searched on your site for John Daly dead and retrieved the email from Jones to Mann talking about John Daly’s death being a piece of cheering news. (snip)
    However when I seach the emails at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php the Jones email has been deleted and the original from Timo Hameranta (same timedate) has been redacted to just the title.

    What is going on?

  69. Kforestcat says:
    July 21, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    “Gentlemen

    It appears that I was partially in error……where Mr. Sexton references details in known UEA grant expenditures from 1995 to 2006 at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=479. Other’s contributors figures also square with the FY 1998-2006 figures for the Jones grant account.”

    Thanks K, but I think you are also improperly attributing credit to me where I have none coming. The link posted was in response to an earlier comment I had made. I believe Warwick Hughes is the source of that bit of information, see below. That being said, obviously, we keep digging. I’m not ready to close the book on this funding. As you observed, the money doesn’t add up. And why the DoE is funding this stuff to begin with isn’t well reasoned either. What I’m astounded by, is according the an e-mail in 2005 Dr. Jones states he’s had this grant contract for 25 years. Which means the funding for the AGW hysteria has been going on since 1980. Time lines and money are important details to get to truth.

    At any rate, below is what I believe you are referencing when you attribute my contribution. The format of the comments lends to confusing sometimes. My thanks to you and Warwick.

    Warwick Hughes says:
    July 19, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    “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………..”

  70. Brian J. BAKER

    The eastangliaemails site has text missing from many emails, if the email contains a special character anywhere.
    e.g. the email you mention, 1075403821.txt has the text “From: Timo Hämeranta” and the text is shown as “From: Timo H”. The letter after the “H” is the cause of the problem.
    The text from after the “H’ is missing right to the end.
    You’d think somebody would fix this. I have mentioned it several times.

  71. A RED LIGHT MINUTE
    Three easy questions:
    Who are the most naive people on Planet Earth?
    Who has the biggest give-a-way budget on the Planet and the least accounting for it?
    Who has the holeyest border on Planet Earth?

    The answer is the same for each question. I’ll give you three guesses and you have a free mobile shout -out and a free mobile call-out. Are You Ready? Go!

  72. latitude says: “Do the Brits give them any money at all?”

    After quick look through the spreadsheet entitled “pdj_grant_since1990.xls” I totalled up roughly £3.8million. The rest of the £13.7m came from the EU (which we bankroll), NATO, US Dept of Energy, and a few others I haven’t delved into.

  73. Some commenters are linking this story to the current administration – they were not even elected and/or in charge when that story took place. All of it has been completed before the last election. Inhofe was part of the previous administration – why did’nt he cried out to fox news about such funding from his administration at the time like he is about every day after seeing his shadow.

    Now blaming someone to hide is head to make sure the $$$ are still flowing in… Well i’ll do the same thing. Who’s the owner of the ”crime” here, the one who received or the one who gave. Was it illegal , no. Where’s the crime then ?

  74. Mike Haseler says:
    July 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Contrary to many views being expressed here, can I make it clear that the problem with the CRU was not too much money being spent on climate monitoring, but far too little….

    The problem I see is not in this area at all. We could use far, far fewer weather stations and still get adequate data to prove/disprove AGW effects… if we kept quality checks on the stations’ surroundings and instrumentation, if we had adequate rule-of-thumb UHI adjustments (or if we only used truly rural stations, which might be better), and if we did not even start to homogenize ie lose individual stations’ identities.

  75. A buyer who buys a single product from a single supplier, continuously for around thirty years, must find the delivered product eminently suited to his purpose. I wonder what re-action an foi request to DoE would spark.

  76. Gentlemen

    It looks like the blog’s word processor made a bit of a mess of my detailed expenditures table in my July 21 comment (it removed empty spaces). Apparently I don’t had the hang of the site’s text editor.

    Am enclosing a new version which I hope will be easier to read. In this version I hand placed spaces for the columns. If the technology makes a mess of this…well the dollar amounts on the first column are Dr. Jones and the dollar amounts on the second column are Dr. Wigley’s

    Jones, k $ Wigley, k $
    FY 2006 $178 Na
    FY 2005 $175 Na
    FY 2004 $173 Na
    FY 2003 $180 Na
    FY 2002 $180 Na
    FY 2001 $180 Na
    FY 2000 $180 Na
    FY 1999 $174 -$3
    FY 1998 $170 Na
    FY 1997 Na $200
    FY 1996 Na $198
    FY 1995 Na $192
    Total $1,590 $587

    I also noted two minor typos in my July 21 comment (one of the hazards of writing at 1:00 am my time). These, with the corrections, are:

    1) On the second to last paragraph. Last sentence should read
    “FY 1988 1998-2007 figures quoted by UEA in the May 7, 2008, e-mail do not appear to be correct.

    2) The last paragraph should read:

    Jones Account 1998-2007 $2.177 $1.789 million.
    Wigley Account 1995-1999 $0.587 million
    Total of above $2.377 million.

    Kforestcat

  77. The comment by the CRU employee about not wanting DOE to know that he had been receiving grants for a long time likely had to do with the fact that he knew he was required to obey US laws (which means responding in a timely and honest/accurate fashion to FOI requests).

  78. Paul F. Pappadakis says:
    July 22, 2010 at 8:39 am
    Some commenters are linking this story to the current administration – they were not even elected and/or in charge when that story took place… Who’s the owner of the ”crime” here, the one who received or the one who gave. Was it illegal , no. Where’s the crime then ?
    _________________________
    The “whatever” here is, as you say, not new. When we give away the keys to our house and safe deposit box, and hand over a General Power of Attorney, we really can’t blame them for stealing everything we have.

Comments are closed.