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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Dirka dirka – Jihad! Follow the money!

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

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.

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

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)?

“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 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.

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

“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.”

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]

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

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

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! 😀

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.

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

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.

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<

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

There was detailed info on CRU grants published by Jeff Id and Lubos Motl back in January. You can see links to graph and spreadsheet here:
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=224

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………..”

[snip]
Reply: you need a valid email address to post here. RT-mod

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.

When are alarmists going to stop defending this guy?

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.

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).