Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« 14th July 2010 | Main | New Scientist on Russell »

US suspends funding of CRU

There is apparently an article in the Sunday Times in which Jonathan Leake reports that the US government has suspended funding of CRU. The DoE will make a decision about whether to restart funding at a later date.

The Times is now behind a paywall so there's no link, but if anyone can point to an online copy please feel free to post a comment.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (17)


Don't know if this is the full thing

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub
Jul 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterFran Codwire

Don't worry.
This is THE Sunday Times we are talking about here.
It will be retracted before the end of the day.

Jul 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Carter

If DOE withdraws its funding they can always go to Wall Street. $131,000 per year is less than a monthly bonus for many investment bankers and the carbon traders will make it up in spades if they have the ammunition provided by UAE to take a commisiion on the air we breathe.

Jul 18, 2010 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean2829

Email I just sent to a few people, looks like Bishop Hill keeps a hot tab on email: ;)
Put onto Watts Up (spotted whilst 'watching' by 6 year old play cricket)
US halts funds for climate unit – pg3 – Sunday Times – 18th July 2010.

The Times website has gone behind a paywall…,

“The Americal Government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last Novembers’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.

The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work asembling a database of global temperatures…

it continues…

“The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”


Perhaps someone in the USA could advice the DoE of the many and varied criticisms of the Muir Russell review. Not least that it was a total whitewash, documented at Climate Audit.

As outlined by Steve Mcintyre at the Guardian debate on climategate in London on Wednesday the 14th July 2010, that Muir Russell had only met with Phil Jones (head of unit) before the panel had been formed and the inquiry started. The Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (UEA) to confirm whether this wa sthe case, and Trevor Davis, eventually said Phil Jones met Muir Russell in January.. The panel convened in February..

Lots of detail about the Muir Russell review failings at, Climate Audit..

Another criticism being, Muir Russell had not even contacted Steve Mcintyre, or a number of the other critics of CRU, let alone interviewed any of the critics of CRU discussed many times in the emails, whose complaints about data openess led to Illegal (in face of FOI request) deleteions of emails relating to IPCC AR4…

These emails were between CRU and other scientists, includin senior 'climate science' American scientists, so presumably funding for these American scientists should be looked at by the DoE’s peer review panel as well to be fiar to CRU who were just one party of the emails.

Perhaps, as part of their review of Muir Russell, the DoE should request all correspondence from the American scientists that were communicating and working with CRU scientists, as both sets of scientists were co-authors and worked closely in the same ‘climate’ field and both very involved in the IPCC process. Including the emails regarding AR4, that the climategate emails state were deleted.

and more articles about Muir Russell at Climate Audit

Jul 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I have it on good authority, next doors pet cephalopod, that the DoE has been ordered to do this by a certain S Chu.
A penny to a squid that Muir Russels report will be proclaimed as completely exonerating UEA of any wrong-doing.
This done, funding will resume at an increased pace to emphasize that it's worse than we thought.
What was the name again, of that Nobel Prize winning Physicist again, who wanted to paint the planet white to Save The Earth?
Turns out that repeated coats of Whitewash are just as effective!

Jul 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

Doh! Too many agains, again.
I love my iPhone but find it tricky to proof-read.

Jul 18, 2010 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr






Project Description
The investigator will assemble and analyze instrumental climate data as a basis for two research areas. First will be the identification climate system variation and the evaluation of general circulation models (GCMs) used to project climate change. Second, the research team will seek to identify signals of climate change forced by the increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. High quality, spatially extensive data bases are required to define the spatial and temporal characteristics of these climate variations. Available land, marine, and paleoclimate data bases will be improved, updated, and expanded using the resources available to the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the 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

Looks like they the DoE has been a little tight for a few years.

Jul 18, 2010 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn


If DOE withdraws its funding they can always go to Wall Street. $131,000 per year is less than a monthly bonus for many investment bankers and the carbon traders will make.

Only the bottom tier do so poorly. Many make 10 times as much. As you suggest, it would be worth it for them to fund UEA.


I love my iPhone but find it tricky to proof-read.

According to Steve Jobs, you are holding it wrong. Of course, what does he know? :)

Jul 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Even political operatives have realized that funding those that seek to prevent freedom of information requests, 'misleadingly' tart up graphs, (etc.) is a bad idea.

Jul 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Is Chu twisting Jackson slowly, slowly in the wind or are the inmates in charge of the asylum? Both, my friends, both.

Jul 18, 2010 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

It is interesting the DOE vs. EPA comment. EPA is putting itself in charge of and regulating everything and anything that uses fossile fuel energy. I always thought that if EPA could mandate gas mileage base on CO2 emissions, there is no longer a need for DOE at all. Perhaps the folks at DOE are beginning to come to grips with their irrelavence.

Jul 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean2829

Did I read somewhere that CRU are funded by Big Oil?

Jul 18, 2010 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Wood

Nothing to see here.
Expect big publicity when the funding is re-instated
following the drying of the whitewash !

Jul 18, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

As far as I can see the GWPF is verbatim the print copy.

Jul 18, 2010 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

As someone said over at WUWT - "In an odd way, this is cheering news"

Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

This is where all the US taxpayer money is going:

Fraud gets ex-Obama, Clinton fundraiser 12 years:

NEW YORK — A wealthy Manhattan investment banker and former top Democratic fundraiser was sentenced Thursday to 12 years in prison for defrauding banks of $292 million, some of which he donated to politicians including Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMary

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>