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
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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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/
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.
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
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.
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! 😀
A bit of digging turned up the story of Representative Barton preempting Cuccinelli:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-07-18-warming-congress_x.htm
http://www.mission-k.net/globalwarming/hockeystick/081221-062305_Mann.pdf
and here’s Mann’s reply: http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
Given the amount of time needed to respond to Barton, I’m not surprised Jones wanted to keep his head down.
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.
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.
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 $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.
1230052094.txt
Also, see 1210178552.txt I seem to recall a Phil comment somewhere that DoE had not asked for reports in return for the grants, but I can’t find it quickly. I might be wrong.
From: Phil Jones
To: “Cater Sandra Mrs (FIN)” , “Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS)” , “Meldrum Alicia Dr (RBS)”
Subject: RE: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant
Date: Wed May 7 12:42:32 2008
Sandra,
These will be fine. Keep a note of these in the file to check
against when the later claims are made.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:08 07/05/2008, Cater Sandra Mrs (FIN) wrote:
Dear Phil,
I have reconciled the account to date and propose to send the following figures all in
US$
Received to date 1,589,632.00
2007/08
Staff buyout Jones 71,708.00
Cons actual to date 9,650.00
Travel actual to date 6,940.00
Indirect costs on above 66,200.00
Total to 30/04/08 1,744,130.00
April to June 08
Staff Jones 19,290.00
Cons 10,550.00 includes some of the previous year under
spend
Travel 3,840.00 as above
Indirect costs 25,200.00
Total 58,880.00
July to Sep 08
Staff Jones 19,290.00
Cons 3,200.00 includes some previous under spend
Travel 4,500.00 as above
Indirect costs 20,200.00
Total 47,190.00
These figures keep within the allocated budget. Please let me know if you agree this I
will e-mail Catherine.
Regards
Sandra
IN 2005, as reported at CA here, the US DOE told Warwick Hughes the following:
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.
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.
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!
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<
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.
It has been known for sometime now that they’re really cheap bastards, but my God, is there no limit to their scam-scape?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Umm, we might be.
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.