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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Phillip Bratby

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.

Henry chance

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.

charles the moderator

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

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.

Henry chance

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.

John from CA

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.

Chris H

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!

Nice find, Anthony. Sure am glad I found your site.

Henry chance

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?

Neo

Jones got a buyout ?

Garry

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.”

Dave Springer

Naive question here.
Why is the US Department of Energy sending money to foreign universities?

NK

AGW = “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY BOYS!!!!”

Stephen Wilde

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.

Henry chance

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.

James Sexton

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.

frederik wisse

I am so sorry , but AGW stands nowadays for Absolute Greedy Whores .

James Sexton

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

UK Sceptic

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

Dirka dirka – Jihad! Follow the money!

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

Robert of Ottawa

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 🙂

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…

hehe, plus travel expenses

kim

Don’t eat the mashed potatoes and don’t fly into London.
=============

kim

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.
==============

latitude

I can’t believe that little bitty building, and those few employees cost that much.
Do the Brits give them any money at all?

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.

Richard Sharpe

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

templar knight

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

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

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)?

Steven Hill

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.

Roger Knights

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.)

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.

pesadilla

“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.

Richard Tol

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

Paddy

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.

James Sexton

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.

mjk

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

Dave F
Brian Johnson uk

“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.”

Dave F

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…

tom s

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.

DirkH

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.

Roy Everett

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.

Theo Goodwin

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.)

DW Horne

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]

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?

Richard Sharpe

It is interesting that Climate Science seems to be following in the footsteps of the Military-Industrial complex and the AIDS-Industrial complex.