Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research


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.

Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were “taken on trust,” according to the report.

“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,” Professor Richard Tol, a climate economics expert from Sussex University whose research was reportedly stolen by CCCEP, told The Daily Mail. “I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.”

Researchers whose work was misrepresented were furious. One professor said CCEP’s actions were “a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain.”



Awesome FAKE Climate Research .....
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
This is not an article about anyone faking climate research. Why do you do this?

Pssst. He didn't write it. I know the internets is hard for you. :patonhead:

Interesting stuff:
CCCEP tried to falsely claim credit for research it never did while attempting to get another $5.4 million of government cash.

Yr welcome.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is not an article about anyone faking climate research. Why do you do this?

The Article said:
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.”

:confused:

Not sure where you get that idea.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
This is not an article about anyone faking climate research. Why do you do this?



if they were faking the research, wouldn't they faking the results ?


:shrug:



using someone else's data is 'faking' the research
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
This is not an article about anyone faking climate research. Why do you do this?

You're splitting hairs.

They took someone else's work and got paid for it. They dredged up old work and submitted it to get more money.

I'm not sure if it's plagiarism, but it is definitely *fraudulent*, even if the data is *true*.

You're making the case that it's not "fake" if the data is correct - they're making the case that the data is fake because it was fraudulent claim to gain access to grants.

Agreed that the title implies that *data* was falsified but it's still a fraud if it's not yours or wasn't done as a consequence of the money given.

The data may be correct, but the "research" never took place, at least by the ones collecting the money.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
...even if the data is *true*...

**Ahem**

The Article said:
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.”
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member

That would tend to suggest that the research is tainted - which in my opinion, always happens when results differ greatly (OR always fall precisely in line).
Science rarely agrees precisely, and until it's well understood, it's going to yield differing results.

SOMEONE must be overlooking something. Of course, for something as complex as climate change, you must overlook some things - there's just too much involved.
It's one thing when you're doing a simple chemistry or physics experiment - even a biology experiment must control conditions to make a meaningful result.
Climate change and anything conducted on such a grand scale will always have factors not figured in. It's why I can't trust the findings. You can't control it.
It's not a Petri dish or a test tube.

Of course, I also don't trust any research seeking to confirm an expected result. Lots of people do it but it's not science.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That would tend to suggest that the research is tainted - which in my opinion, always happens when results differ greatly (OR always fall precisely in line).
Science rarely agrees precisely, and until it's well understood, it's going to yield differing results.

SOMEONE must be overlooking something. Of course, for something as complex as climate change, you must overlook some things - there's just too much involved.
It's one thing when you're doing a simple chemistry or physics experiment - even a biology experiment must control conditions to make a meaningful result.
Climate change and anything conducted on such a grand scale will always have factors not figured in. It's why I can't trust the findings. You can't control it.
It's not a Petri dish or a test tube.

Of course, I also don't trust any research seeking to confirm an expected result. Lots of people do it but it's not science.

I agree fully. "Tainted" research, which is to say research that pre-determined the outcome regardless of the outcome, is in my humble opinion "fraudulent". The article discusses fraudulent research.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Unfortunately, "faking" research results occurs often and is certainly not limited to climate sciences. I saw examples of that back when I worked as a lab technician for a large university propulsion sciences research facility. It's pretty simple, really; research is big business at colleges and universities. Graduate students are given research projects and the funding to do them by their major professors. There is a lot of pressure on those professors , in many cases, to produce results that are of some "positive" value to the sponsoring org or entity that funded the research in the first place. The profs are under constant pressure to pull in more money. That is almost universally true for the funding of "climate change" research. Your work and results do not support the established narrative and forgone conclusions?..see ya later, pal, we'll take our money somewhere else.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
SOMEONE must be overlooking something. Of course, for something as complex as climate change, you must overlook some things - there's just too much involved.



I thought the Tree Coring study that was done in Siberia was a great study ..... its a know fact trees grow more in years with a higher CO2 level





Scientific critics have also raised another looming question. Since Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961 where it then switched to using surface (ground station) temperature data, then why change in 1961? Some theorize that maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline.

After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, Briffa was reportedly put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater. As recorded in ClimateGate e-mails, this presented what Mann referred to as a “conundrum” in that the late 20th century decline indicated by Briffa would be perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that there was a “problem”, and that it posed a “potential distraction/detraction”. Mann went on to say that the warming skeptics would have a “field day” if Briffa’s declining temperature reconstruction was shown, and that he would “hate to be the one” to give them “fodder”.

In an e-mail sent to Mann and others, CRU’s director Dr. Philip Jones reported: “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann’s] Nature [journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa’s] to hide the decline [in global temperatures]…” Then all of the proxy and surface measurement chartings were presented in different colors on a single graph, and Briffa’s were simply cut off in a spaghetti clutter of lines at the 1961 date.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/04/global-warmings-tree-ring-circus/2/#650776ffd5a6
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I agree fully. "Tainted" research, which is to say research that pre-determined the outcome regardless of the outcome, is in my humble opinion "fraudulent". The article discusses fraudulent research.

I'd go so far as to say that all research is tainted to some degree until it's understood well enough to get consistent results across the board, from all parties.

If you drop a ball out of a plane to measure terminal velocity - and it flies upward - you're going to claim some air flow problem or turbulence or make excuses - because it's SUPPOSED to fall down.

All scientists always bring their biases into research. It's unavoidable. What's fraudulent is when the data is convincing otherwise - and you change it.

Or as in the case of the Milliken oil drop experiment - alter it slightly. Feynmann once wrote about it - confirmation bias:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that .
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It's pretty simple, really; research is big business at colleges and universities.

IMHO this is why 'research' universities should be done away with .... not only is their potential for tainted research, research becomes the sole purpose for the university - which should be education.
along with reform awarding research grants ... no one place should continue getting grants for follow on studies - otherwise it becomes a self licking ice cream cone
and potentially suffers something akin to the observer effect / Hawthorne effect or even Observer-expectancy effect
a researcher wants to please the person with the grant money, to get more grant money .....
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
IMHO this is why 'research' universities should be done away with .... n..

Being aware of the incredible scope of university research and the incredible good that comes out of it...I'd have to vigorously disagree with that! And how do you think many students, particularly ones majoring in engineering and the sciences, get a master's or PhD?

And if the bulk of all "pure research" was not being undertaken in universities.....where would it be?
 

LC_Sulla

New Member
You're splitting hairs.

They took someone else's work and got paid for it. They dredged up old work and submitted it to get more money.

I'm not sure if it's plagiarism, but it is definitely *fraudulent*, even if the data is *true*.

You're making the case that it's not "fake" if the data is correct - they're making the case that the data is fake because it was fraudulent claim to gain access to grants.

Agreed that the title implies that *data* was falsified but it's still a fraud if it's not yours or wasn't done as a consequence of the money given.

The data may be correct, but the "research" never took place, at least by the ones collecting the money.

I agree with what you are saying. Let me be clear: This thread and the headline are billed as people faking climate change data. That is not that case at all. Additionally, by going back to the original sources that were cited in the article, I found the article itself to be erroneous. This is fodder for the weak-willed and nothing more.

This is not a story about people "faking" climate change data.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This is not a story about people "faking" climate change data.

What would you call this?
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.”


I mean, I get your point about simply stealing others work and claiming it as your own isn't 'faking it' per se but that presupposes the stolen work is good in a field where the facts don't get you paid; the pre approved facts do. :shrug:
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
This thread and the headline are billed as people faking climate change data. This is not a story about people "faking" climate change data.

Geez. The headline on my screen says "Top University Stole Millions from Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research." There's no mention of climate change data on my screen. Wonder why that is since you are so sure it's there. Oh, double Geez. The title of the article in the link also says "Top University Stole Millions from Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research."
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
just another progressive splitting hairs - when the outcome is plainly obvious to the rest of us
 
Top