UEA – Sleeping with the enemy

The majority of this post was left on a previous thread by Justthefacts.    Mike Hulme is not above taking exxon money as he shows in the emails further down this post.  He even suggests using the money for funding uncertainty studies etc.rather than their intended science.  I suppose that ESSO wasn’t aware that Hulme is a political extremist who by these emails regularly associates with Greenpeace. The email below is just one of many examples of Hulme’s background.

date: Fri Apr 30 15:32:41 2004
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
subject: public statements
to: a.minns

Below are two responses to Doug Parr at Greenpeace about their stop Esso campaign.  They
wanted a statement.  The first is what John and I agreed should be a Tyndall statement.
   The second is what I personally said to Doug.
Is this relevant for Future Forests?
“The Tyndall Centre has a general policy of not officially endorsing the sort of campaign
Greenpeace is running against ExxonMobil.  Individual scientists in the Centre will take a
range of views on such campaigns and we do not believe that a Centre-wide position should
be developed on every issue like this that arises.  On the other hand, the Centre clearly
recognizes that business organizations play very differing roles in the search for
sustainable solutions to climate change and that their interaction with the scientific
process and policy development also varies.
The Tyndall Centres primary role as a publically-funded research organisation is to advance
understanding of climate change and its implications for society and to communicate these
advances in knowledge effectively to a wide range of audiences.  The Tyndall Centre
therefore challenges poor or incorrect science wherever we find it (and we have done so for
example in the case of some science sponsored by ExxonMobil).  We also engage with many
different stakeholders in exploring with them the implications of different climate change
response strategies and policies.  For this reason we do not believe that boycotting any
organization benefits the work of the Centre, although there may well be occasions when we
engage with them in vigorous debate about the options open to society to manage climate
I hope this helps a little explain the Centres position  as individuals, however, I know
that we both have some sympathy with Greenpeaces efforts with ExxonMobil.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Mike Hulme
Professor John Schellnuber
11 March 2004
I do indeed support the campaign to boycott Esso (ExxonMobil).  I do not purchase petrol
from this company, and have not done so for more than 2 years now.  This corporation
   (whatever its motives  and I cant judge these), has consistently ignored, undermined or in
   other ways distorted, the emerging international scientific knowledge which clearly points
towards a significant and growing human influence on global climate through our emissions
of greenhouse gases.  It is my personal view that this reality and future prospect requires
serious and sustained efforts on the part of all nations, organizations and individuals to
reduce the underlying causes of human-induced climate change.  ExxonMobils position and
explicit political lobbying thwarts rather than progresses such actions.
Mike Hulme

Below tells a different story It is copied here with the bold from tAV comment thread and was written by Justthefacts.  –Jeff


“It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded and politically motivated followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer. They never seem to notice that the blogs are unfunded or that their cohorts who disagree don’t take oil money and the few who have get values 1/100th of the UEA.”

I concur, the hypocrisy here is ridiculous. Below is a summary of the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in “climate science”…

—— Forwarded message follows ——-
To: ???@igc.topica.com
From: “Bill Hare, CNE” ???@diala.gl3
Subject: [can-talk] IPCC Chairman: Pachauri in, Watson out
Date sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:25 +020 ???
Send reply to: ???@diala.gl3
Organization: Greenpeace

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

Dear Can colleagues

This note covers the outcome of the IPCC Plenary concluded on Saturday in Geneva in relation to the Chairmanship position. Many other decisions were taken and these will be covered in a subsequent note this afternoon or tomorrow.

As many of you would have seen from press reports over the weekend the IPCC has voted Dr Pachauri of India into the position of Chairman of IPCC. Dr Robert Watson was outvoted in a secret ballot on Friday afternoon – Pachauri 76; Watson – 49; and Goldem berg – 7. As far as we can determine based on the expressed or inferred voting intentions, the vast majority of African countries voted heavily for Pachauri as did all the OPECs, several LatinAmerican countries (Venezuela, Peru and Chile), Japan and some other Asian countries (India plus others). Voting for Watson were all of Europe except Russia, China, Canada, NZ and probably Australia plus a collection of Asian countries and a few small island states present. For those present it was certainly the ugliest and most vile IPCC meeting ever.

Pachauri in the end refused any role for Watson, a gesture of indecency not seen before in the IPCC and entirely against the spirit of the IPCC since it began and all that it has stood for in all of the times past. The fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the process it seems from beginning to end: and the beginning it seems was a long time before the plenary itself and has involved a few senior UN officials acting in extraordinary a partisan ways.

Speaking personally, whatever view one takes of Pachauri the manner of his victory and the forces so blatantly and we strongly suspect immorally, behind the campaign to get him elected, are very likely to haunt his tenure of the IPCC and probably the IPCC itself. In terms of body language at the meeting Pachauri spent an inordinate amount of time in consultation with Don Pealrman and others associated with that camp and were overheard on numerous occasions plotting and scheming on how to use rules of procedure to bring on a vote and to keep Watson out should Pachauri win. He was too engaged with such discussions to talk with NGOs on Saturday.

Objectively there were clear concerns from a group of developing countries over Watson and his behaviour in the past as well as the concern for this to be the turn of developing countries. The latter position of course was spearheaded by the USA in its pre Plenary diplomacy throughout

Africa and Asia, it seems. In this context proposals for a Co-Chair arrangement were dismissed as tantamount to suggesting that developing country scientists were inferior to developed country scientists. Inaddition to the election of Pachauri as Chair the Working Group co-chairs were apppointed and overall there is a very strong and credible line up. Drs Solomon (USA) and Qin (China) were appointed to WGI on Science, Drs Canziani (Argentina) and Parry (UK) to WGII on Impacts and Drs Davidson and Metz (NL) for WGIII (as befor e).

It is anticipated by most that Pachauri will not pay as much attention to the details of the IPCC as Watson or Bolin before him and hence the strength of the WG Chairs will be very important. In relation to Pachauri himself it is apparent that many concerns were expressed as to an apparent conflict of interest between his position as IPCC Chair and position on the board of the Indian government’s oil company. I feel he will need to resolve this soon.

Some in industry are saying that Pachauri’s election means that the IPCC and governments are distancing themselves from the IPCC TAR and from Watson. This is wrong but is obviously a pre-determined message and the possibility of running such a message is likely one of the reasons that many big US industries supported Pachauri and the reason why he got such high profile support from the OPECs. Already one government has had to ask him to come and address this issue soon because their business associations are spinning the election this way . As to the NGO approach, we have to work to make sure that damage to the IPCC is limited as a consequence of this affair whilst ensuring that its integrity is maintained over time. My gut feeling is that industrial and political forces supporting Pachauri and upon whom he so visibly relied (in addition to his own government) will not rest and nor will they be interested in free lunches. We need to tell Pachauri that he should be at least as accessible to NGOs as his predecessors were, and not just to big industries.

I will limit my remarks here.


Bill Hare
Visiting Scientist

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\EM letter general1.doc”

Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom



From: “Mick Kelly”
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +010 ???
Reply-to: ???@uea.ac.uk
Cc: ???@uea.ac.uk, t.o’???@uea.ac.uk

Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc, etc. By email? In person?

I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
Email: ???@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

From: “Mick Kelly”
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Shell International
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +010 ???
Reply-to: ???@uea.ac.uk

Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top levels.

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
Email: ???@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\shell.doc”


From: John Shepherd <???@soc.soton.ac.uk
To: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:37:30 +000 ???


BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in time…

The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer) just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.

Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.

Hope the drafting is coming together well.

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\JGS_CV_informal.doc”

From: John Shepherd <???@soc.soton.ac.uk
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: ESSO
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +010 ???
Cc: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk

I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…

See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??


At 14:07 19/05/00 +010 ???, Mike Hulme wrote:

It will be Trevor on the 19th for ESSO – too tricky for my schedule. I will pass the Esso booklet onto Trevor.

Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re. climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and risk analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal.

See you Wednesday,


At 16:23 10/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:
Despite my efforts Esso have gone firm on 19th (to fit the schedule of their man from the USA). Can you decide between you who should come (I suggest one is enough) : it’ll be lunchtime somewhere in London. I shall be travelling from Ipswich (it’s my week for the Aldeburgh Festival) so we could possibly meet on the train there ??

Copies of the Esso booklet arrived yesterday and are now on their way to you… I read it last night and wrote “misleading” and “wrong” in the margins in quite a few places !


At 10:04 05/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:

I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).

Let me know how this proceeds,


Enron (It’s interesting that there’s no follow up emails to the chain below, but then again Enron went bankrupt less than 3 months later…)

date: Mon Sep 17 10:17:17 2001
from: Keith Briffa
subject: RE: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
to: “Jean Palutikof”

I am interested but happy for you and Phil to meet with him/them . If a visit to CRU is requested , I would be happy to take part in a general discussion.

At 10:11 AM 9/17/01 +010 ???, you wrote:

Does anyone have a strong desire to meet him? Otherwise, I guess Phil and I can handle it.

Phil – do you want me to reply?

—–Original Message—–
From: Hamilton, Tony [[1]mailto:???@enron.com]
Sent: 14 September 2001 19:31
To: ???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk;
???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am a senior specialist in statistical forecasting and meteorology with the research group at Enron Europe Ltd., based at Grosvenor Place, London. As you will know energy demand and supply is heavily dependant on climate, weather and weather forecasts. Also, increasingly, global energy demand and supply depends on climate and weather around the whole northern hemisphere.
Our devoted weather research and synoptic forecasting team based in our Houston office, and myself here in London, are extremely interested in the potential for collaborative University-University and University-Industry applied research projects, particularly between joint US/European research institutes and ourselves. We are interested in all aspects of Meteorology from new ideas in theoretical atmospheric physics through more practical aspects such as short-range deterministic forecasting, medium-range ensemble forecasting and long-range seasonal/climatic forecasting and analysis. My colleagues from Houston (who are currently planning visits to research institutes on the US side in the near future) will be in London in early November and I would very much like to set up an introductory meeting with the heads of the research groups at The Climatic Research Unit to introduce ourselves to you and discuss possible areas of mutual research interest.
If this is something that you would be interesting in setting up, or if you can direct me to a more suitable group or individuals at The University of East Anglia, please let me know and we can hopefully arrange a date for sometime in early November. I am currently in Houston, but hope to be able to return to London early next week depending on the current tragic situation here in the US. I can be contacted by email in the meantime.
Look forward to the opportunity of meeting with you in the near future.
In confidence,
Tony Hamilton
Dr. Tony Hamilton
Senior Specialist, Meteorology and Forecasting
Weather Research
Enron Europe Ltd.
Enron House

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784

British Petroleum (BP)

date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:45:57 +010 ???
from: “Measures, Jane”
subject: FW: Briefing paper
to: ‘Mike Hulme’


Just between meetings and have picked up some quick feedback from Simon on our BP HSE team. Pleased to see how positive they are and what do you think of the suggestion?


Jane Measures
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM

From: Worthington, Simon
Sent: 24 June 1998 09:08
To: Measures, Jane
Cc: Thomas, Charles; Grezo, Charlotte AB
Subject: RE: Briefing paper


This is really good – balanced clear and concise, covering a wide area well.

When completed I would like to get it in to a format to go out to our climate change list as a briefing paper and to all HSE managers – would this be OK with Mike of course we would quote him as the author.

Simon Worthington
Environmental Policy Adviser
Group Health, Safety and Environment
The British Petroleum Company p.l.c.
Britannic House, 1 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7BA
Tel. +44 ???Fax. +44 ???

From: Measures, Jane
Sent: 24 June 1998 08:42
To: isobel; Russell; Thomas, Charles; Waumsley, Lorraine;
Worthington, Simon
Subject: FW: Briefing paper

Jane Measures
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM

From: Mike Hulme[SMTP:???@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 23 June 1998 22:51
To: Measures, Jane
Subject: Re: Briefing paper

<<File: bp.briefing.doc

Attached is a nearly complete briefing paper on the science of climate change. Two topics remain to be completed. It is incredibly hard to condense such a wide-ranging and complex topic into such a format. I hope this is what you had in mind.

I will have a go later today at drafting one of these topics in terms of information sources.

Your feedback would be welcome before I progress much further.


At 11:40 16/06/98 +010 ???, you wrote:

Can you give me a ring please as I’m getting no response from your
telephone number.

Many thanks

Jane Measures
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM

<strong Industrial and Commercial Contacts</strong

From: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk
To: ???@umist.ac.uk
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000


I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

– Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
– Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International

– Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
– ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

– ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
– Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.



At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
dear colleagues

re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
from for the Tyndall Centre

This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we should restict ourselves to board level contacts – hence Dlugolecki is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change. I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief engineer, but he is not a personal contact]

We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector. Does anyone know any investment bankers?

Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can finalise the list.

I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person in brackets).

Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John

Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
[Mike Hulme]
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]

Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
[Nick Jenkins]
Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]

With kind regards

Simon Shackley

So the “the fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the [IPCC Chair selection] process” and the UEA was in bed with every oil company they could get in contact with, but those of us who are skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative are supposedly in the pocket of big oil? The hypocrisy, it burns, unleaded of course…

11 thoughts on “UEA – Sleeping with the enemy

  1. Exxon mobile also makes an appearance in 0277.txt where we see that although team players acknowledge that Big Oil funding was given to them with no strings, the same funding to non-team players is always an effort to bribe / corrupt:

    22nd May 2003, Geoff Jenkins to Phil Jones, Cathy Johnson, Peter Stott, Hans Verolme:

    > Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
    > IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
    > of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. I have to
    > say that at no time did we come under any even slight pressure to get us
    > to say or omit anything in papers we wrote. Of course in Soon’s case they
    > already knew where he stood, so I guess could be confident that he would
    > use their money to come up with more sceptical stuff.

  2. OT.


    I note that although you live in Illinois where DST is in effect your blog is still on standard time or perhaps EST. I’m a time freak and it annoys me. I keep GMT or as I prefer CUT (I think there should be an “n” after the “C” – heh) to avoid such hassles.

    As to the double standard: no one will care. It would interfere with the 24/7/365 of hate.

    Why should people hate companies who provide them with something they desire? Do they secretly hate their own desires? That would be my guess.

  3. What surprises me is that it took $1M to come up with the “first estimate of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on prediction” That’s a lot of man hours and associated costs.

  4. For All the CRU’s ties to Big Oil go back much further than that, they go to the founding of CRU:

    The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences. The establishment of the Unit owed much to the support of Sir Graham Sutton, a former Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Lord Solly Zuckerman, an adviser to the University, and Professors Keith Clayton and Brian Funnel, Deans of the School of Environmental Sciences in 1971 and 1972.[5][6] Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5]

    You will notice that the Rockefeller Foundation is highlighted. That is because the foundation gets a lot of its funds from the shares of Exxon/Mobile they own:

    Stock in the family’s oil companies is a major part of the foundation’s assets, beginning with Standard Oil and now with its corporate descendants, including Exxon Mobil.


    The CRU and its research was founded and funded by Big Oil in the 70’s and they continued this funding over the next 50+ years. The reason for that isn’t in the emails but in the documents section of the first release of Climategate Emails. In that document you see that the UEA/CRU and the Tyndall Centre gave Shell some control over the research that they (CRU) do. If you do not have a copy of that Doc anymore you can see it here:

  5. Pingback: insomnia treatment

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 )

Connecting to %s