When you are willing to pay for global warming “research” that has a
predetermined outcome, all you do is open the door for fraud.
Reader Mark emailed an example today.
Please consider Top University Passed Off Rivals’ Research to Bankroll
Climate Change Agenda.
One of the world’s leading institutes for researching the impact of global
warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it
to win millions from the taxpayer.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre
for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more
Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published
before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described
by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as ‘a clear case of
fraud – using deception for financial gain’. The chairman of the CCCEP since
2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to
combat climate change.
On Friday, the CCCEP – based jointly at the London School of Economics and
the University of Leeds – will host a gala at the Royal Society in London in
the peer’s honour. Attended by experts and officials from around the world,
it is to mark the tenth anniversary of the blockbuster Stern Review, a
700-page report on the economic impact of climate change. The review was
commissioned by Tony Blair’s Government.
Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both
in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers
published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen…
We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.
The Mail on Sunday investigation reveals today that:
- The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which
has given the CCCEP £9 million from taxpayers since 2008, has never
checked the organisation’s supposed publication lists, saying they were
‘taken on trust’;
- Some of the papers the CCCEP listed have nothing to do
with climate change – such as the reasons why people buy particular
items in supermarkets and why middle class people ‘respond more
favourably’ to the scenery of the Peak District than their working class
counterparts;
- Papers submitted in an explicit bid to secure further
ESRC funding not only had nothing to do with the CCCEP, they were
published before it was founded;
- The publication dates of some of these papers on the
list are incorrect – giving the mistaken impression that they had been
completed after the CCCEP came into existence.
Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor
Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said:
‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported,
and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across
anything like it before. It stinks.’
Prof Tol said: ‘Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP. It came out of
David Anthoff’s masters thesis. At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it
only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception
for financial gain. That is what this is.’
Fake Research
The Daily Caller reports Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global
Warming Research.
A global warming research center at the London School of Economics got
millions of dollars from UK taxpayers by taking credit for research it didn’t
perform, an investigation by The Daily Mail revealed.
The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate
Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the
organization reportedly never actually did.
Studies that receive financial support from the public sector
don’t have to disclose it as an ethical conflict of interest, even when that
support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies in the U.S. — which the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to support the scientific case for
its Clean Power Plan — saw the agency give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors,
according to EPA public disclosures.
The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that
the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study
we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon
controls.”
Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money their researchers get
in public funds if their investigations find positive results, making
them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to
encourage studies that will come to conclusions the
government wants.
Predetermined Outcome
All you have to do is pay for it.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
