Bishop Hill Outside again
Apr 23, 2012 Climate: CRU Some time ago, Graham Stringer MP tried to ascertain from the University of East Anglia how much was paid to its PR advisers, the Outside Organisation. Readers may remember that the boss of this company was arrested as part of the phone hacking scandal.
The university, not unexpectedly, refused to release the data, citing commercial interests and confidentiality, and in due course Stringer's request was passed to the Information Commissioner. Last week, in the face of a preliminary finding from the commissioner's office that they would find against the university, Professor Acton et al took a step back and finally released the requested information.
£112,870.71 was paid to the Outside Organisation for their services
It's an expensive business running a cover-up.
I have an outstanding appeal of my own with the commissioner, which with a bit of luck will reveal the related correspondence. The decision of the commissioner gives me at least reasonable hope of success.
Bishop Hill
The letter to Stringer is here.
Bishop Hill
Leo Hickman picks up on the story here.
Reader Comments (52)
Years ago I spent a very happy and instructive afternoon turning over rocks on a hillside. Amazing insights.
====================
What happened to the citing commercial interests and confidentiality, I wonder? Surely if such excuses (doubtless used before) turn out to have no substance, they cannot be effectively wheeled out the next time?
Who is really footing that bill? Students or Government? While I am sure that Administrators of UEA are happy to spend other peoples money to protect their personal reputations and jobs it does seem unlikely that those ultimately footing the bill for their impropriety would choose to spend money the same way.
Heh, 'outside' is slang for homeless. I love it.
===============
Wheels. Coming off. Oh, goody goody.
Go Bish! :-)
A comment on the WUWT item about the Madrid 1995 conference used a pithy turn of phrase: " a global environmental lobby engorged with public funding".
Maybe I'm bitter and twisted, but it seems that the Warmists are highly skilled in getting their snouts into the trough of public money; they use OUR money to lobby for a hoax which advances THEIR interests.
£112,000, and that's the tip of the corrupt iceberg!
Why isn't the Information Commissioner acting on Acton's supposed signing of a commitment to meet the requirements of the FOIA which he obviously is still not meeting.
£112,870.71
That is probably peanuts compared to what Mann & the UVA must be paying for PR firms to help publically in the media against ATI's FOIA lawsuit against them.
John
Is it possible to obtain a record of what 'services' were rendered for £112,870.71? Was this web site maintenance or the standard blagging and police influence package?
Wow. Andrew, is it possible to get a link to the source of the info that appears in the blockquote?
UEA have a statement on their CRUStatements page but they don't mention the amount paid:
I too have an outstanding issue with regards UEA and their refusal to release information.
I too am very hopeful that they will be instructed to release.
UEA really are serial offenders in this respect.
Re: Donna
It should be in their FOI disclosure log ( http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/disclosure ) but I haven't been able to find it.
It would seem it is an expensive business to avoid telling the truth.
And, in another sign of the times, I see that Gaia is not as sick as Lovelock had been claiming (as stated by the man himself)! Gore and Mann must be feeling bleak!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/breaking-james-lovelock-back-down-on-climate-alarm/
Leopard - ta for posting Prof Acton's Orwellianism on the UEA website. I am curious as to what 'distortion and misinformation' Prof Acton is referring to? The whole point about Climategate was that the emails and code were entirely the product of UEA staff, and other members signed up to 'the cause'. There was no Gleikian activity what-so-ever. Maybe a little rephrasing is in order:
"Given the calamitous exposure of the climategate emails, and the need to make sure the media did not focus on them while we continued to suppress communications and documents which were the subject of legitimate FOI requests, I believe that we took the right decision in bringing in external advice from a dodgy public relations company..."
Apr 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM Rob L
Probably it will come out of the University Grant Committee's (or whatever it is called these days) grant to the university - ie taxpayer money. I'd hazard a guess that, with overheads, it is roughly the cost of employing a senior lecturer for one year. So the university will have that much less available for teaching and research.
Oddly, I don't remember a media storm in the UK. It took days to reach the MSM and the BBC ho ho didn't grill them too hard.
I am absolutely appalled. Lets assume that the Con-sultant was paid £1000 per day thats 112 days
Lets say £2000 per day thats 56 days
Ok the pr person is a geniues and gets £5000 per day thats 22 days continuos work? 165 hours?
So Acton thought it was a good use of money and maybe he would like to explain what their press officer does?
The UEA are a joke, sorry sick joke.
'I sought communications advice from a large PR company to address the distortion and misinformation still rife in the wake of the unauthorised publication of emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit. The company assigned Neil Wallis and another colleague to us for this purpose.'
How strange. There was I thinking he wanted full and open independent assessment.
Postscript of the enquiries.
The summary text proposed for inclusion by Graham Stringer, but voted down
There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the emails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over-identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex-colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel.
No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes, other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC, which is what has attracted most serious allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of emails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.
'it would have been irresponsible not to have mobilised additional assistance to defend our reputation and to safeguard colleagues whose reputations were also at risk'
If those were the objectives that the PR firm were given, then they have failed dismally on both counts. Is it too late for UEA to ask for a refund?
Unsurprisingly, the Outside Organisation website is not majoring on Climategate as a triumph for their skills either.
Assuming that nobody in their right mind would give Ed Acton a spending limit of £120K without the need for some form of check and balance. who else had to agree to this expenditure? Which account does it come from (contingency reserve?). And how does the University report it to its governance (if any)?
Bishop -
What did the ICO's preliminary finding say about the exemptions claimed by the UEA, presumably sections 41(1) and 43(2)? The ICO's comments might affect the chances of success of other FoI requests.
Harold
I haven't seen anything beyond the disclosure letter from UEA.
BH - do you know if a previous post of mine went down a borehole or if it got lost prior to posting?
Diogenes
There's nothing in moderation...
One of the first fruits of East Anglia's payments to Outside Organisation were the placement of one of the original "poor Phil" articles: the Richard Girling article in the Times (a Murdoch paper). See http://web.archive.org/web/20110604191409/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece.
I wonder how much Girling's article cost the University of East Anglia.
Latimer Alder Apr 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Is this what you want? UEA rules for authorizing payments.
4 Taxpayer Slave equivalents.
I imagine that this news item is related to Acton paying a visit recently to the select committee. (Reported by BH a few weeks back.)
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
From the Beckhams alleged kidnap plot, to Jerry Hall’s incarceration in the Caribbean on trumped up drugs charges, the So Solid Crew gun charges to Naomi Campbell’s evidence at The Hague and Climategate – we’ve seen it all, and more importantly, we’ve dealt with them. We have enormous experience in the field of media and privacy issues and have managed some of the most delicate ‘crises’ imaginable. Outside has advised and represented rock stars, footballers and business moguls in how to handle potentially damaging situations in the most effective, speedy and discreet fashion. We have broad experience in the legal aspects of difficult crisis situations. And, we are equipped to give immediate advice and put into place action plans without the need to defer decisions to a whole chain of experts at the drop of a hat. Often Outside has had to think on its feet with deadlines looming and clients hard to contact. We do of course work with most of the entertainment legal firms on the finer points of the law but have the necessary background and experience to weigh up situations and give the client the crucial advice when they most need it.
Crisis what crisis.
"In the circumstances we are pleased to be able to release the following information:"
Pleased like someone is pleased to be made to munch a shit sandwich.
Or as welcome as a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcDzJmW6Qg
....... and more recently, the "Not So Solid CRU" case of the mysteriously missing decline.
Hmmm.....
this might be a fruitful avenue for further exploration:-
No revenue expenditure shall be incurred by a Head of Spending Unit unless provision for such expenditure is included in the Annual Budget or has been additionally approved by Planning and Resources Committee or is covered by a specific provision, from an external source, accepted formally on behalf of the University by an employee authorised in that behalf by the Registrar and Secretary.
Thanks BH
I tried to post this earlier but....
If you look at the latest filed accounts for UEA, they conveniently cover the year to 31 July 2010, thus covering the PR exposure.
They have a paragraph up-front in the preliminary verbiage:
A titbit that might amuse:
But on pages 28 and 29 in the relevant notes, of Other operating expenses of £63.03 million (compared with (£57.65m), after classifying some items they are left with a residual, unanalysed figure of £49.64 million (sic). This compares with £45.67m in the previous year.
They have plenty of financial headroom to absorb an unexpected £100k hit.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/fin/2009%252f2010+Financial+Statements
did it fail again?
I see that it did....3rd time lucky
The latest accounts filed for UEA go to 31 July 2010, which conveniently covers the time of the cover up, which is alluded to on page 5. No references this time, because I am bored now.
The corporate governance statement on page 9 is most amusing.
But on pages 28 anmd 29 you get to the gravamen. They declare total Other Operating Expenses of £63.03m (compared with £57.65m for the prior year.
Of this, £49.64m is left unanalysed. i widh PWC were so kind to me!. But the comparative figure is £45.67m.
They have plenty of room to hide a £100k unexpected hit. This is a sizeable operation. And if the top guys want to hide £100k, they can do it within the delegation of authority, because the overall figures allow them to do so.
You can get to the accounts via the UEA website. i am fed up with trying to link there.
the quid pro quo is that...since you have a business turning over more than £50million, then you need a proper document retention strategy.....etc
remember Wallis was being paid for the Outside contract for damage control whilst concurrently being paid by the Met Police and Murdoch.
with Murdoch's organisation ALONE being under relentless attack for behaviour which other MSM are no strangers to, it is surely time for Wallis and/or Murdoch to go on the counter-attack and reveal what Outside's job for CRU entailed. great time to do it, with Lovelock admitting the fact that the CAGW alarmist predictions were wrong. enough said.
btw Australia's dreams for a robust emissions trading scheme have been dealt a hopefully fatal blow, tho the MSM here are already trying to spin it:
24 April: Business Spectator: China delays plans for carbon trading scheme
Further details on China's plans for a carbon trading scheme undermine Labor's contention that Australia's carbon pricing plan was necessary because other countries, like China, are also taking tough action on climate change, according to a report by The Australian Financial Review.
The details suggest that China's plan, which has been delayed, won't see energy companies directly taxed under its carbon trading scheme.
Plans to launch a national emissions trading scheme in 2015 have instead been delayed until at least 2016, according to the project's top official....
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-delays-plans-for-carbon-trading-scheme-pd20120423-TMQ7B?OpenDocument&src=hp6
Acton: "unauthorised publication of emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit"
hmmm, perhaps an FOI request to find out on what basis the word "hacked" was deemed to be the appropriate word for use in this statement...
'It's an expensive business running a cover-up.' Not when it works , getting the RS to rubber stamp the 'evidenced' was smart and now over time who outside the really interested remembers how truly rubbish the inquiry was . Although it may come back to hunt them , if were lucky , at the time the actions of Outside Organisation mostly worked for the CRU and UEA in their objective which remember had nothing to do with science.
Kon Dealer from the very beginning it was clear Jones had no time for FOI and wanted nothing to do with it and further was going to try and subvert it . The failure was the university FOI office either did not feel they were or they were not in a position to ensure that Jones and friends meet their legal obligations under the FOI .
And its classic case of stick to beat your back situation , I would bet they now get FOI requests coming out of their ears , were before they hardly got any. Their unchecked misbehavior, as so often within climate science, has brought them more troubles then if they do the right thing in the first place and never mind what that meant for 'the cause'
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/the-climategate-email-network-infrastructure/
read this and then try nto work out what kind of Foia request could really impede the "cause". However, the big problem is that UEA did not invest in an IT dept until aafter the case blew up...so no one knows what data is lurking...which makes it difficult to capture by FOIA. If Jones had any intellect, he would be quaking like gollum. Gollum...never realised...no Smeagol, never knew...that emails...nasty emails...we spits on emails., sit on many servers...nasty servers...not our friends...no gollum
That's a hell of a lot of money!
Apr 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM | Martin A -- "In the circumstances we are pleased to be able to release the following information:"
Pleased like someone is pleased to be made to munch a shit sandwich.
---------------------------
Ehh! Senor Martin you are a verry fonny hombre! LOL ... Speedi and me ve have lonch togedder [-- there's an old joke behind this.]
The alarmist/con artists/scammers/warmistas need lots of money to keep servicing the lie. They get tons of greenbacks and euro-coins, millions of them, so as to keep polishing the turd, I mean the lie. But the truth does not need forcing, does not need money to say it, to keep explain it and revealing it. So these criminals dressed in lab-coats, measuring us with their own measuring tape, think that since the truth is winning, the skeptics must be paid loads of money by someone, such as Big Oil. But Big Oil had bought into the wind-trubine and solar industry for the money grants long ago. Now they are getting out of the green thing knowing that the grants will not flow anymore. The lab-coated criminals are now very much afraid that their grants will also dry up and the world will realise what they really are. The truth may take some time to get out, but it is getting out.
Since OO and Neil Wallis are involved, perhaps Lord Leveson should request Prof Acton's help with his enquiry?
@ Diogenes
"However, the big problem is that UEA did not invest in an IT dept until aafter the case blew up...so no one knows what data is lurking...which makes it difficult to capture by FOIA".
And that was precisely what caught them in Don Keiller's recent FOI case against them.
The very fact that they had no coherent data management policy meant they couldn't claim they had removed data/emails by "routine deletion".
The data is still "lurking" in various places, most obviously the backup server, currently in possession of the Police.