Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research 2016-10-24 23:31:47 Post No. 80563
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research 2016-10-24 23:31:47 Post No. 80563
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1448351246850.jpg (66KB, 634x201px) Image search:
[Google]
66KB, 634x201px
Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research
Anonymous
2016-10-24 23:31:47
Post No. 80563
[Report]
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.
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.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html
Researchers whose work was misrepresented were furious. One professor said CCEP’s actions were “a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain.”
http://www.thegwpf.com/exposed-the-great-green-lse-con/
CCCEP tried to falsely claim credit for research it never did while attempting to get another $5.4 million of government cash. That money would have covered its operations until 2018.
“Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP,” Tol said. “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.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/top-university-stole-millions-from-taxpayers-by-faking-global-warming-research/
>>
Government and private grants have made CCCEP one of the most lavishly funded institutions of its kind in the world, as it has raised and spent about $37 million since 2008.
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.
http://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/schwartz.pdf
http://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/levy.pdf
http://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/driscoll.pdf
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.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2015/05/05/Study-says-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-would-reduce-premature-deaths/stories/201505050108
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.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-29.pdf
>>
>brits, when will they learn?
People don't steal my global warming research because I'd shoot them if they did. God bless America.
>>
>>80563
I'll believe it when I see a real source report on it. All you have are clickbait merchants and political agenda/junk science blogs.
>>
>>80563
Global warming iis fake so its not like the money wasn't already being thrown away
>>
http://www.cccep.ac.uk/news/response-to-article-by-david-rose-in-the-mail-on-sunday/
>>
>>80580
>Responding to the publication today of an article by David Rose in ‘The Mail on Sunday’, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, said:
>“This article is riddled with serious mistakes, inaccuracies and misleading statements, and creates a wholly false impression of the work of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
>We note that David Rose and ‘The Mail on Sunday’ have a track record of promoting climate change denial and misrepresenting the work of researchers, so we are not surprised at being targeted by them.
>s an example of the errors, the article cites Professor Richard Tol, who claims that one of the papers which he co-authored, ‘Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change’, should not have been cited as an output by one of the members of the Centre.
>But the article was published in 2009 in the journal ‘Ecological Economics’, after the Centre was founded on 1 October 2008, and was co-authored by Professor Cameron Hepburn, who was at the time, and still is, a member of the Centre.
>When the Economic and Social Research Council carried out a regular mid-term review of the Centre, we submitted a list of 520 research and policy outputs, including 276 published journal articles, which had been produced by members of the Centre during its first phase between 2008 and 2013.
>This list, which is published on the Centre’s website, explicitly identifies those papers that had been co-authored by members of the Centre, but which had not been funded by the Centre, such as the paper by Professor Tol and Professor Hepburn.
>We have discovered that seven publications in the list of 276 should have been identified as not having received Council funding, but were not, and we have notified the Council of the mistake.
>These mistakes will have had no bearing on the decision by the Council to continue funding for the Centre between 2013 and 2018.
>>
>>80581
>We were evaluated by a panel of experts, and these publications were not part of our core research programme.
>Mr Rose’s article also mistakenly confused the list of publications that was submitted to the Council for the mid-term review and the list of publications separately attributed to the Centre on RCUK’s ‘Gateway to Research’ database, which did not exist at the time that the mid-term review was carried out.
>The list of publications that was submitted to the mid-term review is available here: http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CCCEP_Publications.pdf”
>>
>>80581
Thank you anon for dispelling the effect these climate change denying faggots tried to have.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1