the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

CRU Apparently Received over 1.7 Million USD From the DOE

Posted by Jeff Id on July 21, 2010

WUWT follow the money report.

See the rest at Watts Up With That.

What does staff buyout mean?

20 Responses to “CRU Apparently Received over 1.7 Million USD From the DOE”

  1. dearieme said

    “What does staff buyout mean?” I don’t know but here’s a guess. Jones has university dutiesthat he puts aside to do work on DOE business, and the money mentioned is used to hire someone else to cover those duties.

  2. kim said

    Many commenters think this is just a set up for another whitewash, but I can’t help but wonder if it is a fight between Chu and Jackson.
    ==================

  3. Thanks, Jeff!

    Follow the money back to its source, and you will find the scoundrel(s) directing the campaign to sell CO2-induced global warming as a scientific fact.

    Unfortunately, they are using my tax funds for this folly !

    Thanks for your efforts to restore integrity to science.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  4. STEPHEN PARKERuk said

    Come on jeff, we havnt heard a decent rant for ages. If anything deserves one, this does

  5. sod said

    EXXON was giving a similar amount to denialist groups last year.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-gave-15m-climate-denier-groups-last-year-breaking-its-pledge-stop-funding-denial-machine

  6. Anthony Watts said

    CRU is beyond absurd. It’s like a bad episode of the original Battlestar Galactica, oh wait…

    And yet, they are clueless as to why people are angry with their practices it seems.

    Perhaps it is time to start a petition to the DOE to defund them permanently.

  7. Jeff Id said

    #5 You realize you are comparing the funding of Exxon to a hundred billion plus dollar global industry. And the ‘funding’ was documented by a group openly dedicated to the mitigation of the economy, and reported by an extreme leftist blog which would further the greenpeace cause if for no other reason than they like limitation policy.

  8. Jeff Id said

    #6 I didn’t know there were any bad episodes of Battlestar Galactica???? haha.

    It’s not sane.

  9. sod said

    #5 You realize you are comparing the funding of Exxon to a hundred billion plus dollar global industry.

    no, i am not doing that. i am comparing the money to the sum mentioned in your headline. as i said above.

    And the ‘funding’ was documented by a group openly dedicated to the mitigation of the economy, and reported by an extreme leftist blog which would further the greenpeace cause if for no other reason than they like limitation policy.

    if you have doubts about the story, simply name them Jeff. if you don t have doubts about it, do not pretend that there are some.

    ———–

    EXXON made a false claim about the funding.

    and the amount is similar, to the amount mentioned by Jeff in the headline. the CRU provide accurate climate information,with the money they received. this has been confirmed by multiple investigations.

    the EXXON money is given with the purpose of spreading disinformation. can you see the difference?

  10. Jeff Id said

    “the CRU provide accurate climate information,with the money they received.”

    I don’t see any confirmation of accuracy, only confirmation of accuracy in gridding of temp data or are you saying the ‘investigations’ of UEA emails showed they were accurate?

  11. j ferguson said

    is the GHCN time-series a child of the CRU data sets or independently assembled?

    If the first, then the DoE is paying for the initial assembly and QA.
    If the latter, maybe DOE is paying for an “independent” check.

    Seems odd in any case. Perhaps the possibility that it would become public knowledge that there was no real value received for the money expended is at the root of the obfuscation.

    I wonder if he Inspector General has audit access to CRU.

  12. intrepid_wanders said

    #9 – “the EXXON money is given with the purpose of spreading disinformation. can you see the difference?”

    Yeah, whatever… $6.6mil to environmental groups and $225,000 to some “gray” groups…

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/gcr_contributions_environ09.pdf

    Greenpeace tripe…

  13. TGSG said

    Sod = look over there… A BUNNY

  14. Steve McIntyre said

    Jeff, this is only for the grant DE-FG02-98-ER62601 from 1998 to 2008. Jones had been funded by DOE for at least 15 years before that and for 2 years after. So it’s at least double the amount shown here.

  15. intrepid_wanders said

    #14 – “Jeff, this is only for the grant DE-FG02-98-ER62601 from 1998 to 2008. Jones had been funded by DOE for at least 15 years before that and for 2 years after. So it’s at least double the amount shown here.”

    Oh dear, Phil has something to answer for here. Not the $2.2mil, but, perhaps he forgot to provide the proper update to the DoE that T. Wigley had done so well in the past (Before moving on from CRU). T. Wigley appears to have made yearly reports to the US DoE, while on the DoE dole. Phil appears to have gotten stuck on an publication of MM2004 to pay attention to the DoE obligations. US citizens may fear the “tax-man”, but this must be troubling to say the least.

    Tom Wigley’s updates (DOE/ER/60397) – http://www.osti.gov/bridge//searchresults.jsp?Author=%22Wigley,%20T%22

    Phil Jone’s updates (DOE/ER/60601) – http://www.osti.gov/bridge/basicsearch.jsp (The only 60601 I can find, not Phil) Funding – http://www.osti.gov/oberabstracts/detail.jsp?projectSerial=2002

    Apparently, 60397 was supposed to be superceded by 60601 (Reports included), but CRU dropped the ball and cashed the checks. Too busy with MM2004 to fulfill obligations to other governments. No wonder Tom was worried as well.

  16. Frank K. said

    As many have pointed out, the CRU funding is peanuts compared to the millions/billions our government is lavishing on the climate research groups- including stimulus funds (which they are commanded to spend fast…).

    Re: Exxon.
    As a private company, Exxon can do what it wants with its money, just as George Soros can do what he wants with his money. That is, of course, unless certain people want to dictate what other people can do with their money…that’s called a dictatorship.

  17. gi2hpambudi said

    Please, visit the url

    http://bookof.wordpress.com

  18. Geoff Sherrington said

    Steve McIntyre in his tireless way found an earlier reference of interest here from CA. I’ve lost the hyperlink in copying. Sorry. Thank you, Steve.
    ……………………………………………..

    Steve McIntyre says:
    July 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    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.

    ……………………………………..

    So the USA pays Phil around $us 3 million and he’s not obligated to make a full report? Where is the USA Auditor-General (as would be the Office here)?

  19. After learning that the US DOE paid millions of US dollars for the questionable climate studies of Prof. Phil Jones, and

    Studying the history and the official mission statement of DOE,

    http://www.cfo.doe.gov/strategicplan/docs/execsum.pdf

    My friend prepared this draft video for DOE of a sales pitch on neutron repulsion – the energy source that heats planet Earth and sustains life:

    What do you think? Will bureaucrats be able to grasp from Granny’s whisper what they ignored in peer-reviewed literature?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  20. kan said

    Regarding Sod #5

    Here is the list of “denialist” groups:

    24 organizations in ExxonSecrets database were funded in 2009:

    * AEI American Enterprise Institute $235,000
    * Atlas Economic Research Foundation $100,000
    * National Taxpayers Union Foundation $80,000
    * Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory $76,106
    * Annapolis Center $75,000
    * Communications Institute $75,000
    * National Black Chamber of Commerce $75,000
    * Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $75,000
    * Heritage Foundation $50,000
    * Manhattan Institute $50,000
    * Media Research Center $50,000
    * ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $47,500
    * Mercatus Center, George Mason University $40,000
    * Washington Legal Foundation $40,000
    * Center for American and International Law $33,50
    * Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment $30,000
    * American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research $25,000
    * American Spectator Foundation $25,000
    * National Association of Neighborhoods $25,000
    * Texas Public Policy Foundation $20,000
    * Federalist Society $15,000
    * Pacific Legal Foundation $15,000
    * Landmark Legal Foundation $10,000
    * Mountain States Legal Foundation $10,000

    Yes, these are the “go to” groups for Climate Change denialism.

    A bunny indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: