Climate scam exposed – taking credit and money for another’s work

From the “Bob Ward department”.

Bob-Ward-293x350[1]

The irascible Bob Ward

By David Rose, The Mail on Sunday

Exposed: How top university helped secure £9million of YOUR money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll climate change agenda

  • One of the world’s leading institutes has claimed credit for its rivals’ work
  • Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy made bid for more funds
  • It claimed it was responsible for work published before it even existed

One of the world’s leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as ‘a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain’. The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.

He is also the president of the British Academy, an invitation-only society reserved for the academic elite. It disburses grants worth millions to researchers – and to Lord Stern’s own organisation.

On Friday, the CCCEP – based jointly at the London School of Economics and the University of Leeds – will host a gala at the Royal Society in London in the peer’s honour. Attended by experts and officials from around the world, it is to mark the tenth anniversary of the blockbuster Stern Review, a 700-page report on the economic impact of climate change. The review was commissioned by Tony Blair’s Government.

The review argued that the world had to take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or face much higher future costs. It has exerted a powerful influence on successive British governments and international bodies.

Part of the CCCEP’s official mission, which it often boasts about in its public reports, is to lobby for the policies Lord Stern advocates by presenting the case for them with British and foreign governments and at UN climate talks.

Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.

The Mail on Sunday investigation reveals today that:

  • The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which has given the CCCEP £9 million from taxpayers since 2008, has never checked the organisation’s supposed publication lists, saying they were ‘taken on trust’;
  • Some of the papers the CCCEP listed have nothing to do with climate change – such as the reasons why people buy particular items in supermarkets and why middle class people ‘respond more favourably’ to the scenery of the Peak District than their working class counterparts;
  • Papers submitted in an explicit bid to secure further ESRC funding not only had nothing to do with the CCCEP, they were published before it was founded;
  • The publication dates of some of these papers on the list are incorrect – giving the mistaken impression that they had been completed after the CCCEP came into existence.

Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said: ‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.’

The paper cited by the CCCEP of which Prof Tol is a co-author was published online by the Ecological Economics journal on July 31, 2008.

Mr Ward said the CCCEP is a ‘world class university research centre’, and when it asked for the second slice of funding from the ESRC, it submitted in all ‘520 research and policy outputs’ and 139 media articles. He added: ‘We reject any suggestion that we misrepresented the outputs of the Centre in our submission to the mid-term review.’ He claimed our investigation was an attempt to ‘promote climate change denial’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html#ixzz4NtxXsjTi

Bob-bot

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “Climate scam exposed – taking credit and money for another’s work

  1. Yep. Just like it was a ‘mistake’ that got 4 good people killed in Benghazi.

    Those ‘pure as the driven snow’ types seem to make a lot of such mistakes. And they are going to cost us tens of $$Trillions and hundreds of millions of lives if people don’t soon wake up.

  2. Erroneous reporting.
    Ward didn’t claim to represent a top-class university research department – only a world class university research department.
    World class must represent the average across the world i.e. “bog-standard”.
    Hence this behaviour is now normal practise in the average university research department.
    I’d say the CCCEP research was incredible and fantastic.

  3. Mistakes can happen !!! these are supposed to be highly intelligent and experienced RESEARCHERS. It doesn’t take much to check out your facts before you publish. Oh, sorry, I’m an old-fashioned scientist that believes in doing real research (know that’s gone out of fashion now )

      • “Well the Stern report was one big mistake”

        Yep, bought and paid for by the egregious Tony Blair, just like the ‘Dodgy Dossier’.

    • Somehow, the “mistakes” happen to favor the position they took. Did any “mistakes” work against them? Funny how that happens. Just like all temperature “adjustments” cool the past and heat the present.

      • If they do that enough it will need to compound into the LIA period then they can’t say the LIA didn’t exist

    • One misrepresentation is a mistake.

      Two misrepresentations are a serious mistake worth investigating.

      Two separate grant submission letters with multiple authorship responsibility misrepresentations is a definite serial intent to defraud.
      Send in the investigators.
      Send in the Prosecutors.
      Send in the taxmen.

      Watch them build another whitewash committee to sweep this under the carpet.

  4. We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he (Ward) said.

    Sounds about right, after all they’ve been ‘amending mistakes’ in climate data for years.

  5. Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said…………………………………….”He added: ‘We reject any suggestion that we misrepresented the outputs of the Centre in our submission to the mid-term review.’ He claimed our investigation was an attempt to ‘promote climate change denial’.”

    What? We made mistakes in our submissions but reject any suggestion that we misrepresented the outputs of the Center in our submission……

    • I think he’s trying to say that their mistakes (well, actually, LIES) were used in obtaining funding, but midway through the funding cycle, they’re not lying about what has been funded.

      • I read it as “we misreprented who published and paid for the work, when the work was done, and even what the work was about… but we never once lied about the results of those studies.”

        Sure, you lied about everything else, but we should trust your results?

  6. “The publication dates of some of these papers on the list are incorrect – giving the mistaken impression that they had been completed after the CCCEP came into existence”

    The dates were adjusted upwards for good reason and all the unadjusted data is available to anyone who doesn’t ask for it

    Looking forward to hearing more from Prof Tol on this

    Humorous search result I forgot a 3rd c CCEP The Certified Compliance & Ethics Professional

    • In your judgment what would be the odds of “appropriate action” being taken? Your much closer to the players than I or almost everyone else here are. Based on history my judgment is that nothing will be done. Am I wrong?

      • I agree, RAH. As long as you have the right agenda, any of your “mistakes” will be unreported and quietly buried.

      • If there is a sufficient case, as it currently seems, then the LSE should be held accountable and prosecuted. There is a new culture growing in the UK since Brexit. One that is welcomed not just by the public but also those in power who have so far been silent about the misuse of authority that has presided through the ‘socialist’ era. An era that is now ending.

  7. Easy mistake to make.
    By the way, on a completely unrelated matter, I have written what I consider to be a rather good book. It is a bit long but very good reading. I knocked it out in Russian as an exercise for my evening classes so if anyone wants a copy just let me know. I think I will call it War and Peace.

  8. It just goes to show how arrogant & corrupt climate science (AGW) has become, this is probably the new norm!

  9. Remember when the BBC lied by claiming they had met with the world’s top climate scientists, when they were only activists from WWF, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc? There were no repercussions, because the BBC was telling the “correct” global warming storyline.

    Chances are nothing happens to Bob Ward, Stern, etc., because they are also telling the “correct” story.

    But at some point reality has to prevail, and there will be consequences.

    • Stern’s economics is hopeless as demonstrated by his Review so removing the ‘E’ is appropriate.

  10. Usually when stuff like this surfaces it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Would be nice to see some real journalism for a change and get to the bottom of this. In the US real journalism is dead. It’s now only propaganda.

  11. “Mistakes can happen”……… to any climate change alarmist seeking £9 million for spreading further propaganda!

    • When you have ever heard that a con-artist ever gave willfully any money back!
      The best return as far as I can tell, in these cases would be in the lines of ” that this all did happen for your own best” kinda of reply.
      When and where the fraudster even takes the position of a Zen teacher……………..with no shame and remorse at all.

      cheers

      • a con-artist ever gave willfully any money back!
        ==========
        hey, if you are stupid enough to believe the con-man, whose fault is it if you get bilked. certainly not the con-man. it isn’t like they held you up with a gun and forced the money from you.

        so, from the con-mans point of view, they are completely justified in taking your money. so why should politicians feel any different? After all you were the ones stupid enough to believe them.

        the only big difference between a con-man and a politician is that the con-man doesn’t have the ability to force you to give them money. the politician however has the tax department to force money from your wallet, under pain of imprisonment.

        and while the con-man can go to jail for telling you lies, it is completely legal for politicians to lie to you. A politician can break any promise with impunity, why you and I would find ourselves before the courts should we do the same.

      • con-artist motto:
        ” The lesson’s worth a cheese, don’t you agree?” ( The_Fox_and_the_Crow )

      • paqyfelyc
        October 24, 2016 at 6:00 am

        :)
        In another way,,,, nothing new under the sun, only the gravity of the situation at the moment………..

  12. I am driven to conclude that, in today’s “climate science is settled” mindset, the only mistake is getting caught faking. Getting rich is more important than living a life of integrity. This same attitude pervades politics and finance.

    • Getting rich is more important than living a life of integrity.
      =============
      when people see scum bags getting rich by lying and cheating, and honest people getting trampled under foot, it doesn’t take long before there are no honest people. Corruption follows and the rot sets in. Eventually heads will roll, sometimes the rich, but more typically the poor will pay the price.

  13. Anthony, we need another special link along with the Sea Ice page and Solar data page, etc., as a place to document these AGW scammers and fraudsters. CCCEP, #Exxonknew state AG’s, Shukla, Gleick, and their ilk need to be documented for easy reference. You have the venue to keep these shamed names on a handy reference page.

  14. Let us not use their characterization. They want us to believe that an organization which supposedly does science can’t keep track of what papers they have published nor even has a record of when said organization was established and first started to publish. Those that believe that I guess could describe their actions as a “mistake” but for the rest of us that live on this planet, it’s criminal FRAUD, plain and simple.

  15. They will probably get even more funding as a result of these “mistakes”.

    In climate science, the more you make up, the more resources the grant funding agencies provide. In addition, if an institute on the pro-global warming side gets into any kind of trouble, they just get more resources from the grant agencies as a form of protecting them.

  16. I remember when Lomberg did his analysis a few years ago, sometime around 2011 or so, and figured then that the world had committed about a trillion bucks over that prior 20 years and global emissions had not budged. It’s amazing to me how passive the populations of the West are to this ongoing scam. I guess part of the reason why is because a lot of the money is intentionally diverted through schemes like subsidies, mandates, etc so the average person may not realize his energy cost are higher than they otherwise would be if those schemes were not in place. That and the fact that so many believe the “Big Lie” that they are “saving the world”. I always think back to the book I read chapters from during grad school, “Extraordinary Mass Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.

    • Scott
      another major part of the deception is the fact that PV and wind plants are built with borrowed money at cheap interest rates.Don’t let your superannuation funds invest in renewables. The final resolution of this scam will be very, very ugly.

  17. Oh right….

    It’d be Bob Ward, Nick Stern and the London School of Economics – yeah… that’s right… that LSE

    Folk aren’t mentioning much about Jeremy Grantham’s actual hand up Bob.s backside that’s working his mouth.

  18. “‘… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.”

    Shouldn’t it be ” My successor will takes steps over the next week to amend these mistakes.”

  19. We know we didn’t do all the research we said we did BUT we feel like we did do it and in any case we certainly would have if we’d had the 9 million quid sooner.

  20. We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.

    Would that include returning the money?

    • money no longer has any — or at least much — meaning.
      ===========
      it was never about money, it was about debt. who owns the debt and who owes the debt. because if you own the debt you own the person that owes the debt. slavery without the chains.

      • Wrong-o, ferdberple: At the billions and trillions, who owes, owns. Miss a payment? Whose economy tanks?

      • Aw, crap. After reading my last comment, it is apparent I’m going to have to comment beyond the usual sound byte.

        Fiat money is not real: If not based on a varying scarcity value of a commodity (e.g. gold); money is worth whatever your government says it is. The bigger the government, the more we believe it. The more imaginary money/debt/faith we place in a government, the stronger it will be, the greater the value of its fiat money.

        If (and when?) we lose faith in the U.S. Government, the value of the dollar will fall. Do any of you realize that the credit rating of the U.S. Government has fallen? The more the U.S. prints money, the more it deficit spends, the weaker it is on the world stage? Deficit spending on green boondoggles is just that. It makes us weaker.

        Screw all you watermelons. Real men and women know how to improve human existence. Invest in capitalism, or wither and die.

      • There’s an old saying.
        When you owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you.
        When you owe the bank $1,000,000, you own the bank.

        That is, if you should decide to default on your debt, the bank goes under.

  21. “If you want to understand why people behave in a certain way, look and see what behavior is rewarded”.
    (from – “The Greatest Management Principle in the World”)

  22. This is not just “mistakes” it is deliberate misrepresentation of other people’s work to obtain financial gain.
    Most people, apart from “Greens” and “Libtards” call this “Fraud”.

    • “Most people, apart from “Greens” and “Libtards” call this “Fraud”.”

      Waiting for Mosh or NIck to come and say this is all ok. !!

  23. Mr Ward is advised that more than two millennia ago Plato wrote:
    “Once a man is caught in a reprehensible fraud, for ever after he is not believed even when he told the truth.”

  24. It is some time since I retired from University research, but I know how difficult it was to get even a few £100K from the UK science research councils – even if your submission was rated very highly your chances of actually being funded were very poor because of the limited funds. It really distresses me that any academics would stoop to this level and prevent other honest applicants from obtaining funding (but I suppose it just goes to show that climate activists aren’t real scientists or real academics)

  25. CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’,
    =====================================
    so why should we believe you have not made other mistakes? How can we trust your finding on something hard like climate science, when you can’t even get right something as simple as knowing which papers you’ve written?

    oh yes, trust us, we are climate scientists. here is the list of the work we have done. er, no that is wrong, here is the list of work we haven’t done. but trust us, the work we have done, well that is first rate. even if we didn’t actually do it.

  26. Richard has vented his anger all day on twitter, and rightly so, with Bob the scam Ward replying with out and out ‘Terminological inexactitudes’ Churchill.

  27. I rather think that “Sasha” hit the nail on the head when he wrote “THE TRUTH ABOUT BOB WARD AND THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE” in a previous WUWT thread.

    If you can’t locate it let me know and I shall point it out. (It is revealing; very revealing).

    Regards,
    WL

  28. In the US he would merely have to say, “We strongly identify with those who did the research, and feel we are one of them.”
    Acceptance would be demanded by those in university.

  29. The planet is cooling and in the end all the words in the world will not conceal the fact. And if those scientist who warn that we may be heading for a Maunder minimum are right things are going to get very tough. It is estimated that in the last event that up to one third of the planets population perished through famine and cold. I read this item about France yesterday. I am also aware of crop failure in Papua New guinea Vietnam and Norway. There will be many more. All ignored.

    http://www.politico.eu/article/france-farmers-wheat-harvest-failure-suicide/

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/crops-still-failing-to-provide-as-food-shortage/

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-18/drought-killing-vietnam-rice-crops-compounds-mekong-water-crisis

    Etc etc.

  30. It’s simple either the work is your own or someone else’s , pay back the govt and let the owners of the plagiarised papers sue .

  31. “If I have made mistakes in my work…” Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Nuremberg defendant. (found guilty)

  32. ‘a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.’

  33. Even worse here in the U.S.A.

    Here, all universities claim ownership of all papers published.

    Did the University President do the research NO!

    Did the University President write the research paper? NO!

    Did the University President write the grant proposal? NO!

    Was the grant proposal, research and paper done by a “university employee”? NO!

    At my “university” term and tenured Faculty are not “employees” of the university.

    Only those payed by certain Fund Money are employees.

    Who are the employees? President, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Provosts and administrative staffs.

    Why?

    Term and Tenured Faculty are “payed” by Grant (Agency, Federal, and State).

    “Payed” means: hourly salary, healthcare, medical, retirement, time-off (annual leave use-or-loose per year), time-off (sick leave. If I quit the money goes to the university).

    Ah Ha! I a “term or tenured” faculty is … payed by the University, then that person can be fired at will without recourse! So no “term or tenured” faculty wants to by “payed” by the University!

    The university “pays” me nothing! And it takes currently 48% from any grant I write that is funded as overhead.

    So far I have not seen many U.S.A. University Presidents getting up before Press to announce “I have made a GREAT DISCOVERY”.

    [ I digress. A few years ago the “President” of a Quasi-Government Agency in Japan did hold a Press Conference of his ASTONISHING SCIENTIFIC FINDING”! None others, in Japan at least, have repeated that! Well, U.K. is the last Communist Union Soviet on Earth! Isn’t It! True True. ]

    Why?

    Most U.S.A. University Presidents, 99% I would wager, are too busy trying to scheme Title IX to 1) hide their “Booty Safaris” with NCAA student athletes and 2) use Title IX to scapegoat a subordinate admin/staff to take the fall. Ha ha Penn State!

    That is the shenanigans part-n-parcel at my university here in the Blessed U.S.A.!

  34. Good news – real science with the guts to stand against scam, corruption and wishful green thinking!

  35. Someone should make a complaint to the Met Police. CCCEP gives a London address at LSE as a contact office – that’s Met jurisdiction. This looks like fraudulent solicitation of funding, misconduct in public office and quite possibly misappropriation of public monies. Someone should be going to gaol if convicted. Were I in UK and a UK taxpayer, I’d do it – this appears to be plain criminal.

  36. As Lady Bracknell said in The Importance of Being Earnest, to lose one parent is a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. In this case substitute making mistakes for losing parents.

  37. To see this kind of thing and and consider what happened the great Bill Gray (RIP) It just makes you put your head in your hands

  38. Ward and all supporting the so-called `Grantham Institute` should be prosecuted. What they did amounts to theft from ordinary taxpayers. Or will the `great and the good` circle their wagons yet again as they did at the University of East Anglia. Now it is the world famous London School of Ecomics and London University that has been indelibly soiled. No Tony Blair there to help you now. Where are the Government legal custodians and the Metropolitan Police? Cannot they see this dreadful tissue of lies and fraud? When will ordinary folk and taxpayers be protected. The cash that was deceitfully received would have been better spent on the National Health Service. Words fail me – have they no conscience at all?

  39. “Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics.”

    At best this is a sloppy organisation. If they make fundamental, professional mistakes like this, why would anyone trust any of their research? It’s likely to be as sloppy and inaccurate as their administration process.

  40. Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said: ‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.’

    The paper cited by the CCCEP of which Prof Tol is a co-author was published online by the Ecological Economics journal on July 31, 2008.

    However, one of the co-authors of that paper is a member of the Centre and certainly is entitled to claim it as his prior work. It was listed as having been produced without any ESRC funding, so I can’t see what Tol’s objection is.

  41. How long has this fraud been going on at the London School Of Economics ? Yes stealing someone else’s work for financial gain is a mistake and stealing taxpayer grant money under false pretenses is a mistake . Who Knew ?
    If a student pulled the same stunt where would they be .? That’s right either in jail or at the very least on the street .
    This wasn’t students (who are actually smarter than the climate clowns ) this arrogant dishonesty deserves a criminal charge response .

Comments are closed.