Bishop Hill Schellnhuber and the Tyndall Centre
Nov 29, 2011 Climate: other Some strange goings on with UEA's successful bid to host the UK's national climate change centre. UEA's success led to the setting up of the Tyndall Centre.
Talking to the judges
On 27 September 1999 we see an email (#2779) from UEA's Martin Parry (later head of IPCC WGII) in which he discusses a conversation he has had with Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.
Please keep this confidential. It is a note on a phone call last week with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. In summary, he has offered to "champion" the UEA cause for a UEA bid for the Climate Change Centre.
Hans Joachim...wanted to talk at some length about the Climate Change Centre. He said, without being asked, that he is a member of the Selection Committee. He asked about UEA's bid and I emphasised its strength in breadth and depth, at some length (at his request). He felt it useful to know about this because he emphasised that he felt rather isolated as one of perhaps only two members of the selection committee who were familiar with the broad aspects of climate change analysis. At several points in the conversation, he volunteered to help us in as discrete as well as honest a way as possible.
I suggested that the best way in which we both might help him is to let him have our thoughts concerning the underlying issues that might frame a successful bid (rather than simply describing the strength of our bid to him); i.e. identifying the key activities which we think are required in a new Centre, where the current gaps in activity are, where the potential overlaps are that need to be avoided, what links one might wish to see with other national and international centres, etc. He thought that this would help him fulfill an informed and useful role (again in an honest manner) on the selection board. It would also help us by, incidentally, informing him of the strong assumptions that underly the UEA bid.
I asked Hans Joachim about the membership of the committee. These are as follows: Sir Crispin Tickell (Chairman); Danny Ellerman (Energy Programme MIT); Michael Gibbons (Deputy General Association of Commonwealth Universities; member of the ESRC Council); Charlotte Grezel (Manager of Climate Change Programme at BP); Geoff Randall (NERC Council); Steve Rayner (Battelle; led the recent programme on policy responses to climate change); Robert Channon (PEGASUS); Tim Swithinbank (Department of Chemical Engineering Sheffield University); Alan Thorpe (Hadley Centre). I asked if Sir John Houghton was on the committee and Hans Joachim said he was not; at least I thought so, until I checked this piece of information later with Trevor and Mike who indicate that there is clear evidence that Houghton IS on the committee. I could check that again with Hans Joachim if you wish.The upshot of this is, to repeat, that Schellnhuber is willing to champion our cause. The question is how best to do this in a proper manner. One way, I think, is to keep it at a personal and discrete level and for me to feed back to him not so much the obvious strengths of the UEA bid but more the sort of underlying arguments which we have rehearsed and which we think should properly underlie ANY strong bid (i.e. fleshing out the lack of information in the Research Councils' description about what is really needed, its nature and its structure). I would be happy to be an informal conduit for this information, which might be preferable to a formal link between those more actively preparing the bid.
Shortly afterwards, in #686, we can see an outline of UEA's bid, with the attached agenda mentioning "issues for Schellnhuber".
Six months later we pick up some more developments. In #5173, we pick up a discussion between Tom Wigley and Mike Hulme. They appear to be discussing their lobbying and also some of the rival bids, in particular a bid from Imperial College London, which involves Professor Michael Grubb. Wigley has a low opinion of some of those involved:
Bob Harriss (ESIG Director) says he'll be glad to support the CRU et al. bid -- he may have already written to you. Eileen Claussen (Pew) told me that Michael Grubb had also contacted her. She thinks he is a jerk; but because of the formal contact from both groups, she thought it best to support neither. Too bad.
By the way, if you want to play an underhanded trick, you could try to get some *real* economists to express their opinions on Michael. I know that Rich Richels and Jae Edmonds have a very low opinion of him (as do I). He has no formal background in economics, even though he claims to do credible economic analyses. Basically, he is a "greenie"; and he bends his "science" to suit his ideological agenda. I don't know how you can alert the people who are judging the two bids to this: but it may be helpful to know the facts.
For what it is worth, I have a similarly low opinion of John Woods and John Mason -- a couple clever "know-it-all"s in my view.
Hulme is similarly minded:
Thanks Tom, I have the letter from Bob and it is very encouraging. Your comments about Mike Grubb confirm our view that Imperial have chosen the wrong person to 'head' their Centre, but then it seems he has negotiated himself a new Chair at Imperial and delivering this new Centre was probably part of the deal. We have a suspicion (but no more than that) that Steve Rayner (one of the Assessment Panel) may also have an interest in this - but there is nothing we can do about that.
We reckon that Schellnhuber, and probably Alan Thorpe, would go for the UEA bid, and we think we probably have the NERC vote, but in the end I think a lot will come down to how Sir Crispin Tickell decides the dice should fall. Is Grubb the sort of person that would impress Tickell?
We also learn some more of Wigley's opinions:
Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. Crispin is not only ignorant (in the economics area) but also a *real* snake in the grass. What he will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it, not on the basis of knowledge-based and fair judgement. At least Woods and Mason will be more balanced -- but their knowledge in these areas is also superficial. The trouble is that all three *think* they know more than they do. I think you are up against it. However, good luck.
On the same day we learn (#2088) of some problems with the bid. The head of the panel that will choose the winning bid does not like UEA's Tom Wigley, apparently because Wigley had published a paper that was not sufficiently alarmist.
date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:11:20 +0000
from: Trevor Davies
subject: Research Director for TC
m.hulme@uea
Mike, Be aware that Tickell dislikes Tom Wigley; this isn't hearsay - I know this for a fact. After Tom published that "delaying -emissions cutbacks - scenario" analysis in Nature, Tickell told me that Tom was irresponsible, & had damaged the likelihood of the cc issue being addressed seriously. There is also the baggage about Tickell pinching some of CRU's ideas & Tom telling him so rather unsubtly. So - he needs to be the "sort of top research scientist we know is interested".
Trevor...
Schellnhuber comes to UEA
Later that year, UEA's bid for the national clmate centre was successful. However, this is not the end of the story. We learn in #4958 that Schellnhuber is about to make the move from being on the panel responsible for awarding the national climate centre bid to Tyndall, to become the new institution's research director.
UEA have issued a contract to Prof. Schellnhuber (who seems to be referred to as John in this email) for an indefinite [full-time] professorial appointment with a start date of 1 October 2002. He will be a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Research Director.
- John has verbally accepted this offer and both he and we are now planning for a 1 October start date.
- John is planning to take up the UEA offer as a 'leave of absence' from PIK, for three years in the first instance.
- Written confirmation from John is awaiting the final details of his arrangement with PIK's funders.
- In the meantime, UEA is proposing John for a Royal Society-Wolfson Merit Award which, if successful, would defray a non-trivial proportion (maybe up to 50%) of the cost of the appointment for the Tyndall Centre. If unsuccessful, the bulk of the cost of the appointment will fall on the Tyndall Centre budget.
Opinions of Tyndall's new director of research
It appears that some people at UEA were unhappy with Schellnhuber's appointment. In #0432 Tom Wigley lays out his opinions of the new man. In this remarkable email we learn that Schellnhuber is taking a two full-time salaries - one from UEA and the other unidentified but presumably the Potsdam Institute. We also learn that Wigley does not think Schellnhuber is worth the money.
"You know I have no respect for this guy. My position is fully justifiable; one just has to look at his background and training, and his publication and citation records. Quite clearly, he has contributed nothing of value to the science. But even a very competent person could not possibly hold down two responsible, full-time jobs like this. Is he being paid only 50% by both institutions? Is he spending 50% of his time at UEA? Has he contributed anything significant to the research or research initiatives/planning of the Tyndall Centre?
I ask these questions because of my concerns for UEA, ENV, and the Tyndall Centre, as a Professor in ENV, and to let you know that (unless I can be convinced otherwise) I intend to raise the issue of the continuation of his employment at an ENV Professorial meeting. From what I know, he has not met the contractual obligations of his appointment and so could legally be dismissed. At the very least this issue needs to be discussed."
Some years later we also learn that Ray Bradley and Phil Jones have similarly low opinions. Bradley writes in #3803:
I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn't know you got those for spouting bullshit, but I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing...
Jones agrees:
We all agree on that!
Bishop Hill
I inadvertently misattributed the paragraph beginning:"Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people..." to Mike Hulme. In fact these words were written by Tom Wigley. I have inserted a few words to correct the attribution. My apologies for the error.
Reader Comments (42)
This stuff would probably be standard academic politics and cattiness were the subject not so important.
The gossip is just that, but Parry and Schellnhuber were not allowed to have those conversations.
I would love to see the UEA loose its funding.
In that case they could reconstruct itself into a more honest institution.
Regrettably, it won't happen and we will be left with this bunch of scientifcally third rate shysters attempting to control the agenda.
If they were Medics, they would be struck off the Register.
It may or may not be of interest but from the 2009 emails 0939003588.txt appears to be the same email mentioned above as 0686 but with a slight addition of a cc address at the beginning and 0880476729.txt is Tom Wigley's response to a campaign letter in the run up to Kyoto signed by 11 climate experts - including Tim O'Riordan, Martin Parry and Han-Joachim Schellnhuber.
0040.txt from the 2011 release includes a list of candidates for the Research Director job at Tyndall. £65k-75k a year starting salary and potentially a job for your partner.
My goodness!
1. Is it ethical for someone on a selection committee to conspire with one of the potential candidates?
2. Does the fact that that person expects to be named to the staff and be research director (along with an OBE) influence the answer to question 1?
When I, a retired business consultant (BSME/MBA), did pro bono work for a university on a project funded by a US gov. grant I had to take an on line ethics course and pass a test. If the above 2 questions were on the test, I know how I would have answered.
BTW, both Anthony Watts and Dr. Curry have current posts on Climate Science ethics.
Astonishing.
I'll leave the Schnellnhuber rort out of this for the moment.
t's fascinating to see Wigley playing the good guy in terms of defending the scientific method:
<I>Basically, he is a "greenie"; and he bends his "science" to suit his ideological agenda.</I>
I'm sure that Professor Grubb had just the right qualifications to be a member of Lord Turner's supposedly independent Committee on Climate Change.
http://www.theccc.org.uk/blog/categoty/michaelgrubb/
But he appears to be a member no more. I wonder why?
JEM,
At least Wigley shows some signs of honesty - sad how exposure to the likes of
VoldemortMann (VoldeMann?) can be so corrupting.This is highly explosive.stuff.
From various potentially legal issues over political interference into science to dirty laundry.
And all at British and German big boys top level.
What a cosy club it all is!
Potsdam [PIK] are the CRU/Penn State, CAGW advocates - German style.
Chief amongst these is Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf - see who he is mates with...., mind you, though I disagree with Rahmstorf's point of view on just about everything 'green', he is at least a very well educated fella - even if he is a conspirator par excellence and collaborator in UN climate catastrophe propaganda diffusion.
As is, Herr. Schnellnhuber [Doctor of Physics and mathematician], though, he 'left the reservation' years ago, now an arch Malthusian and misanthrope.
Jones and Bradley, pooh poohing Schnellnhuber is a little bit rich imo, in the echelons of academia, both Jonesy and Bradley would be a bit outclassed seemingly.
4171.txt (AI = Artificial Intelligence)
"date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:18:28 -0700
from: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>
subject: reply to several
to: Sarah Raper <sraper@awi-bremerhaven.de>, Sarah Raper <s.raper@uea.ac.uk>
Sarah,
I have just got back from a very interesting meeting in Japan on
stabilization -- from the IA modelling and economists viewpoint.
The only climate science people there were me, Michael Schlesinger
and Haroon Kheshgi. The rest were people like Naki, Jae Edmonds,
Richels, Tom Kram, John Weyant, etc -- and a lot of Japanese who
were mainly part of Morita's AIM team. Many people gave
eulogies for Morita -- he was much admired and respected.
Listening to what the AI groups have been doing recently makes
me cringe at what the Tyndall Ctr is trying to do, and realize just
how far they are out of it. Many people spontaneously criticized
Schellnhuber -- he is apparently a bit of a laughing stock among
these people..."
Richard Tol's comment #2 is short, sweet and to the point. His tweet 'oh oh' is even better.
=================
@Nov 30, 2011 at 12:20 AM | Athelstan
No Schellhuber (not Rahmtorf) is chief of the PIK (Potsdam Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung), one of the Frauenhofer Institutes.
But he is much more, he is also leader of the "Wissenschaftlichen Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU)" (scientific advisory board of the government about climate change).
In 2007 Chancellor Angela Merkel appointed him her chief advisor of the government for climate change and climate policy.
He is also member of the advisory board to EU president Barrosos for energy and climate change.
Schellnhuber @ Tyndall, an absence of leave.
=================
WRT funding, 0277.txt has some interesting comments on the role of Oil Companies
Embedded as an exchange, this from Geoff Jenkins to various luminaries (including Phil Jones):
"Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via IPIECA 10 years ago,
...
I have to say that at no time did we come under any even slight pressure to get us to say or omit anything on papers we wrote. Of course in Soon's case thet already knew where he stood, so I guess could be confident that he would use their money to come up with more sceptical stuff."
Also look later on in the email for a charming exchange from Hans Verhome WRT briefing against a talk by Soon "Mission accomplished"
They have absolutely no concept of genuine disagreement.
What a sad, sad state of affairs for government science and for political leaders of the economically thriving nations that were united as the "Free West" during the Cold War!
"I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing..."
"We all agree on that!"
Yeah, we all agree on that.
At every point it is clear the team has acted improperly when given the opportunity.
How can there not be real corruption with this much noble cause corruption, self dealing, insider dealing, conniving and conning?
Just a small point. I stumbled on #0432 a few days ago, so did a few searches on Schellnhuber. I concluded (rightly or wrongly) that Wigley's accusation that Schellnhuber was holding down two jobs was wrong. I believe that Wigley was writing at a time when Schellnhuber had been offered the post at Tyndall, but hadn't yet taken it up. Schellnhuber was already using his new job title however, which led Wigley to believe that he was doing two jobs. All IMHO.
Do you want to be in my gang?
To be honest, every where I have worked in the world, with whatever company, there was always one or more back stabbers around. They always stuck out due to the fact that they were always crap at their job and it was their only way to stay in the work.
I learned at a very young age to carry a Dictaphone around. It produced some very red faces when during meetings, the inevitable terminological inexactitudes and selective recall erupted. It would seem some involved in all this should have used the same sort of device!
What a tangled web this has all become!
Nov 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM | Manfred
PIK is a Leibniz Institute, not Fraunhofer
Manfred`s clarifications (@ Nov 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM) on the various roles of Schellhuber are startling. Clearly he is a significant member of a very tight circle of people influencing policy at the top level in Germany (as Merkel`s "chief advisor of the government for climate change and climate policy") and at Brussels (where "he is also member of the advisory board to EU president Barrosos for energy and climate change").
The sooner this network is revealed for what it is to a wider world the better. Presumably this is the group that has manipulated huge sums of taxpayers money to propagandise their AGW message - as disclosed on this blog earlier this year.
Schellnhuber is close to Tony Blair too, and to Jennifer Morgan:
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/jennifer_morgan.html
James Evans,
In some of the emails there is a reference to Schellnhuber being part time research director at Tyndall.
0173.txt dated April 2002 mentions a quibble over reclaiming £15k they had paid him and that PIK is okay with 'HJS' taking a leave of absence but they will still make his pension contributions. In that one I am curious to see 'researcher' used in relation to that £15k as if it isn't quite kosher. Previous to this comment I mentioned a potential for the successful RD of Tyndall getting their partner a job and indeed Mrs HJS was a visiting fellow at Tyndall for a short while.
2166.txt from September 2001 again mentions HJS as a part time Research Director so by the time of Wigley's email (0432.txt) HJS had already been in the job but only part time.
Another instance of HJS being involved with Tyndall is email 3913.txt from July 2001.
The Team behaving badly. That is the story of Climategate.
These people would denounce their parents if they thought it would enhance their careers.
A right untrustworthy bunch of parasites.
Manfred @ Nov 30, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Indeed and noted.
Schellnhuber is on the Climate Advisory Board at Deutsche Bank with Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Browne, Lord Oxburgh, Klaus Töpfer, Amory Lovins, (Rocky Mountain Institute), Robert Socolow, (Carbon mitigation Institute, Princeton), Fabio Feldman, (board member at Greenpeace International, The Nature Conservancy (Brazil), and Friends of the Earth Brazil).
Ciao Koch-Weser of Deutsche Bank was on Ban Ki Moon's "High Level Climate Finance Panel", with Chris Huhne, Lord Stern, Christine Lagarde, (now IMF chief), George Soros et al. It was set up to advise on the Green Climate Fund of $100 billion per annum, which was agreed at Copenhagen. Their report was released three weeks before the Cancun Climate Conference. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
Koch-Weser's wife, Maritta Koch-Weser, has served on the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) with Rajendra Pachauri and became a trustee of Teri-Europe after Richard North revealed John Houghton and Crispin Tickell as trustees. They are now "advisors". http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-1.html.
At Cancun, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christina Figueres was given the task of convening a new transitional committee to begin work on the formation of the Green Climate Fund and was to second staff from the UN and other international institutions to support the work of the committee. Before her current position she had been involved in carbon trading with the Carbon Rating Agency, a subsidiary of Idea Carbon, to which Lord Stern is advisor, along with his colleague, Sam Fankhauser, of the UK CCC.
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
Back to Tyndall, Mike Hulme had also sought the support of Pachauri and his Teri organisation for the Tyndall Centre and had many e-mail exchanges with Dr Gupta from Teri, of which a small sample here:
To: Sujata Gupta, Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
TERI
Mike Hulme 28th Sept 1999
Dear Sujata,
This may well not be news to you, but the UK government has recently requested bids from UK universities to house a new 'National Climate Change Centre'. The Centre would receive funds of 2 million pounds sterling per year for (at least initially) five years. The role of the Centre would be to compliment existing work on climate modelling and data analysis (IPCC WGI areas) by focussing on 'solutions' (mitigation and adaptation options and their implementation), specifically for the UK government and business community, but within a global context. The emphasis appears to be on IPCC WG3 area with a strong commitment to integrated research, but with some overlap with WG2. The Centre would carry out independent research, but would also be expected to make use of, and to integrate, exisiting UK research and expertise. It would be expected to contribute to and to foster interdisciplinary research that underpins sustainable solutions to the climate change problem.
UEA is making a bid for this Centre. Applications are due by mid-October. UEA is well-known for CRU, but it also has strengths in data distribution to the climate impacts community, in impacts research, and in environmental economics (CSERGE). While these areas are fundamental foundation stones for the science that the Centre is expected to develop, the Centre would need to expand significantly beyond these areas. We have a Consortium in place as follows:
- 6-7 Senior Partners - (UEA, UMIST, U.Southamton, Dept. Economics at
U.Cambridge, Cranfield, Leeds Institute of Transport Studies, IH and ITE)
- Affiliated UK Organisations - (we have 6-8 of these)
- Supporting Business Links
- Supporting International Organisations
If UEA were to succeed in its bid for the Centre, then it would seek to develop strong links with other institutions abroad in order to strengthen its own intellectual base and, through such links, to contribute to the development and implementation of the science. We would see TERI as one of these Supporting International Organisations.
To this end, we would like a short letter of support from yourself - on behalf of the Policy Analysis Division, or a wider TERI grouping if you feel able to represent them - indicating that you fully support the UEA bid and would exclusively lend your backing to this Consortium and be keen to interact closely with us at a research level were the Centre to come to UEA. This interaction may take the form of exchanging scientists, testing out new methodologies, developing/advising on workshops, providing entry-points into international policy initiatives, etc., etc.
Nothing too formal or lengthy at this stage, but we would like to provide the Council's with a flavour of the breadth of our existing and future colloboration in the field and our ability to mobilise support in our favour.
Many thanks. Please send to Prof. Trevor Davies, Dean, Environmental
Sciences, UEA, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, before the 12th October.
Feel free to ask me for more details, etc. Our written text is beginning to take shape and we will circulate a draft of this to you before the bid goes in.
Regards,
Mike
He was seeking exclusive support from Teri, who initially agreed, until it transpired that Rita Kumar, (see eureferendum link again), had been approached by Imperial College, who were also candidates for hosting the new institute. In the end, Teri offered support to both Institutes in their bid.
1st Feb 2000
Dear Mike,
TERI has a presence in London as of 25 January. My colleague Dr Ritu Kumar there has been approached by the consortia led by Imperial College for TERI to join them. I am writing to explore the possibility of TERI joining both consortia on a non-exclusive basis. This would of course imply that we do not share/participate in the preparation of the bid. Any inputs provided by TERI would be common to both consortia, unless it was in response to a specific request by a particular partner.
As we have committed to you first, we will revert to Imperial College for a non-exclusive tie-up, only after discussing the matter with you.
I am copying this email to my colleague Dr Kumar.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Sujata
Mike Hulme was quite upset:
8th Feb 2000
Dear Sujata,
I have consulted with colleagues in our Consortium and we consider the
following to be the position .....
- we clearly would prefer TERI to affiliate to only one of the two finalists, and obviously we prefer that one to be our bid. This is espeically the case since we made our initial approach to you last September when there were still seven bids in the making; no-one else approached you at that stage and therefore we feel we have some preference through prior approach.
- we recognise that you may now consider it in your interest to affiliate to both finalists to cover yourselves either way (although we consider there are strong grounds for you not to do so). This is your choice of course, although were you to do this then I must point out the following two consequences:
a) since I believe I sent you last October/November a copy of our outline bid for the Centre I would need to insist that you do not divulge the contents of this outline to Imperial College. This is clearly a case of professional integrity which we are sure you understand.
b) if you indicate that you are also joining with Imperial then this effectively precludes any further dialogue between us over the remaining 3 weeks before submission. All that we would be able to do would be to name you and your expertise in our submission rather than engage you interactively in shaping 1-2 of our ideas (which was my original intention as our final bid shapes up).
Please let me know how you wish to proceed - either way, I look forward to a fruitful association between us in the event of our bid succeeding with the UK Research Councils.
Best regards,
Mike
In the end Teri stayed non-exclusive:
16 Feb 2000
To: m.hulme
Subject: Re: Tyndall Centre bid
Cc: ritu.kumar , R K Pachauri
Dear Mike
Thank you for sending the outline bid submitted last October. After reviewing the document, my colleagues and I were of the view that TERI should go non-exclusive. Our primary interest is to be part of the project and given that we (TERI) would have the role of an affiliate in both the bids, it was decided that we go non-exclusive.
We understand that the outline bid is confidential and I can assure you that it will not be shared with anyone outside the concerned colleagues at TERI. Also, I assure you of all possible support TERI can provide in developing the final bid. We look forward to a fruitful association with you on the project.
Wishing you all the best in securing the bid.
Kind regards
Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
The rest as they say, is history......
DennisA -
I find the misspelling in the email above from Mike Hulme amusing: "[T]he UK government has recently requested bids from UK universities to house a new 'National Climate Change Centre'. [...] The role of the Centre would be to compliment [sic] existing work on climate modelling and data analysis."
Two milliion a year to hand out plaudits sounds about right. ;)
Bloody hell - in amongst all the back-stabbing, bad-mouthing and outright hatred - do you suppose these guys ever got round to doing any meaningful work..?
[Snip - tone it down please.]
This is a great thread for those of us who have been following the politics and personalities as well as the science is this whole CAGW debate.
For those who are unfamilar with Tyndall Centre, I'd highly recommend that you visit their web site starting at this page
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/directors
and then read the following two bio pages at least
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/Robert-Watson
and
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/Kevin-Anderson
and please try to convince me that these people aren't fully invested in the whole CAGW charade. This is not just about noble cause corruption. It is also about personal gain - OK not personal fortunes admitted but these people are undoubtedly making a very nice comfortable living (and making themselves feel self-important) out of this whole politically inspired and funded CAGW charade.
KevinUK
Gareth,
Yes, you are right about the part time work. As you will have read, 0173 says: "The German end would like him to continue as a consultant with them, much as he has been doing for Tyndall for 15% of his time."
And yes, Hulme doesn't sound too happy about the 'researcher' position.
DennisA,
Blimey. My head is spinning. What a small world it is up there at the top of the climate tree.
"Schellnhuber is on the Climate Advisory Board at Deutsche Bank with Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Browne, Lord Oxburgh,..."
Good old Oxburgh. No wonder that review of his was so excellent.
2693.txt (2002) gives some further background. Phil Jones was clearly not happy with how the Tyndall Centre was being portrayed by Mike Hulme and felt that CRU was being sidelined.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2693.txt (from Phil Jones)
Take a look back to May 1999 in which Trevor Davies reports to the CRU5 that a confidential document has been "leaked" to him - http://www.di2.nu/foia/0925823304.txt.
Does this tie in to the present theme?
Hey Bish;
El Reg has a link to your post about the grubby Tyndall Center origins, in the context of the 'marketing' of AGW 'Tipping Point' ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/climate_tipping_points/
Fine work, sir.
RR
Steve
Interesting point. If we could identify the source of the leak it could be interesting.
Ruhroh
Thanks. I've just done a header post for it.
Re: http://www.di2.nu/foia/0925823304.txt
"An important requirement seems to be to attract an 'internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist' to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson?"
So... they went with Hulme. A man who could send me into a coma, even if I was being simultaneously pleasured by the entire Brazilian Beach Volleyball team.
Steve
"Take a look back to May 1999 in which Trevor Davies reports to the CRU5 that a confidential document has been "leaked" to him - http://www.di2.nu/foia/0925823304.txt."
and from that email
" NERC and EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved."
Does that explain how a non-squash playing atmospheric physicist get's to write a paleo-reconstruction paper that supports The Team?
http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/05/juckes-noamer-pcs/
http://climateaudit.org/2006/11/25/juckes-and-covariance-pcs/
The German connection in things climatic, especially from the business side, is interesting, and will prove more interesting as things progress.
Siemens is a big player in renewables, and some other things.
Without the accounting detail available to support this conjecture, I conject that part of the present European financial crisis is because a few influential German bankers and some hangers on invested heavily and foolishly in a green future. When you have money to spend, burning holes in your pockets, you just love to put it into a cause, while you hope that you have not been bitten by snake oil.
Sounds like it's time for "Sink the Bismarck" remake 3.
Thank you, DennisA, for your organisation plan.