Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Scam Exposed
By Paul Homewood
David Rose exposes some decidedly dodgy behaviour at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy:
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.
He is also the president of the British Academy, an invitation-only society reserved for the academic elite. It disburses grants worth millions to researchers – and to Lord Stern’s own organisation.
The chairman of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy since 2008 has been Nick Stern
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.
The Peruvian anchovy and four very fishy papers
The review argued that the world had to take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or face much higher future costs. It has exerted a powerful influence on successive British governments and international bodies.
Part of the CCCEP’s official mission, which it often boasts about in its public reports, is to lobby for the policies Lord Stern advocates by presenting the case for them with British and foreign governments and at UN climate talks.
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.’
The paper cited by the CCCEP of which Prof Tol is a co-author was published online by the Ecological Economics journal on July 31, 2008.
The centre also gets generous funds from other government and private sources, such as American green billionaire Jeremy Grantham. This year, it was awarded a £374,000 grant to pay for a three-year CCCEP fellowship by the British Academy, presided over by Lord Stern. These grants make it one of the most lavishly funded institutions of its kind in the world, with an income since 2008 of more than £30 million.
Lord Stern has also become personally wealthy through his climate change work. When it last filed accounts a year ago, his company, NS Economics Ltd, set up to handle his public speaking income, had a bank balance of £349,000. He is also paid as an advisory director of the giant Spanish solar energy firm Abengoa SA.
The CCCEP is part of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which is also chaired by Lord Stern.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Why would anyone expect anything else from such shysters?
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. ………….. He added: ‘We reject any suggestion that we misrepresented the outputs of the Centre in our submission to the mid-term review.’ He claimed our investigation was an attempt to ‘promote climate change denial’.”
Does anyone think that someone will be held accountable? I think not. After all their cause justifies any means.
Sure, they made mistakes. Probably thousands of them, all in the climate science arena. If they can’t tell who published what paper and can’t get the dates right for the publishing of papers, why in the world would anyone be foolish enough to believe they are capable of doing actual science????
Yep! They want us to believe they can’t even keep track of what papers their organization has published and when their own organization came into being.
Instead of using their description of their actions as a “mistake” let us call it what it is. FRAUD!
Ward is not called “Fast Fingers” for nothing.
“Lord Stern ……. is also paid as an advisory director of the giant Spanish solar energy firm Abengoa SA.”
11th Aug 2016:
Abengoa Reaches Deal With Creditors to Avoid Bankruptcy
Spanish renewable energy and engineering firm avoids Spain’s largest-ever bankruptcy
http://www.wsj.com/articles/abengoa-reaches-deal-with-creditors-to-avoid-bankruptcy-1470910453
Perhaps there’s at least one cost-saving decision Abengoa can make.
Obtaining funds by deception. Will the police charge anyone with fraud?
Misuse of public finance. Will the government ensure the funds be returned to the treasury?
I doubt very much. One rule for the elite and another for ordinary people.
At a catch-all minimum it’s malfeasance in public office. That can be used to get anyone, anywhere, anytime.
“The review argued that the world had to take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or face much higher future costs.” Sounds risky?
IPCC Working Group III: “The sooner emissions start declining, the less we’ll depend on risky negative-emission technologies in the future. There can be significant risks associated with large-scale mitigation measures.”
Damn the torpedoes. full speed ahead?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Climate Change” – what a wonderful way to fleece unlimited and unregulated funds from taxpayers under the guise of “saving the planet”.
Zero guilt attached as the fleecing process is virtuous and honourable in the moral duty of saving you and your children’s grandchildren’s, grandchildren’s, grandchildren….whatever the cost.
And regardless of the lack of any measurable benefit.
There is a constant argument from global warming believers that scientists are “pure” and would not commit acts of fraud. The only thing “pure” is a robot programmed never to lie and no one stands to gain anything from fraud. Either scientists are robots, or they are completely capable of fraud and may often commit it when huge sums of money are involved. Areas that serve as a religion to many are the easiest areas to exploit, because questioning the preachers is considered blasphemy. I’m sure that’s one of the advantages of elevating global warming science to the level of a religion—blind faith allows fleecing of the believers.
Stern has a record of being wrong. It is argued that he caused Lehman Bros to crash, which triggered the 20008 banking crisis. The reason was that they had bet the farm on carbon trading: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19617/1/Key_Elements_of_a_Global_Deal-Final_version(2)_with_additional_edits_post_launch.pdf
Fraud is fraud, regardless of how many honours a person has had heaped on him. A big fine, removal of the honours and a term at Her Majesty’s Pleasure would do these scamsters a power of good.
+1
if this is not fraud, which the average member of the Public would think, then it is “Misconduct in a Public Office”.
Either way these scamsters, starting with “Lord” Stern need to see the inside of a prison cell.
Hey its just £9 million from taxpayers since 2008, what’s up can’t afford it?
How are we going get this green agenda fully embedded into UK law without a bit of give and take… 😉
/sarcoff
Blair asked Stern to write a Climate Review. Stern likely replied (behind closed doors): “What do you want me to say?” The rest is history. This is how “scientists” get into bed with politicians to their mutual benefit.: both parties get what they want (particularly prestige & funding) and Stern gets put on a pedestal. The Review is as believeable as any Blair-spin. Can someone remind us whether Stern got his peerage before of after his Report?
Is this a case of another sinecure-seeking pig at the trough of taxpayer funding?
‘Can someone remind us whether Stern got his peerage before of after his Report?’
Happy to oblige.
“The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006.”
Oooh, look! Barely was the ink dry on Nicky-baby’s obliging Stern Review than his peerage was confirmed. Nice work if you can get it and obviously just a coincidence.
“On 18 October 2007, it was announced that Stern would receive a life peerage and was to be made a non-party political peer (i.e. would sit as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords). He was duly created Baron Stern of Brentford, of Elsted in the County of West Sussex and of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton on 10 December 2007”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern,_Baron_Stern_of_Brentford
To be clear Stern really DOES have a stellar CV. It’s eye-wateringly good, which of course is exactly why he was chosen to write his wonderful piece of government-approved climate-Armageddon promoting fiction. Such turnings are the wheels of government industry.
“Oooh, look! Barely was the ink dry on Nicky-baby’s obliging Stern Review than his peerage was confirmed.”
Indeed.
Seems there’s a lot of it about.
Baron Stern of Science_Fraudgate?
Stern: Just to recap., I checked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
… which I found partic’ly useful in this context. I urge fellow readers to do so, if not already.
There’s a wealth of follow-up resources.
Stern-gate …. surely!
Lordy, lordy! What a blot on his copy-book!
Doubtful.
Tony Blair has probably lent him his teflon coat.
The likes of Stern are never held accountable for their malfeasance.
So Stern’s report is about as honest as that other great Blair report, commonly referred to as “The Dodgy Dossier”. And, in all probably, more costly to the taxpayer, and responsible for more deaths due to the poor and vulnerable being unable to heat their homes.
Looks like misconduct in public office to me.
Anyone want to bet the BBC will avoid any mention of this?
Stern will simply state that as an Economist, he simply used the information supplied to him by the World’s best Climate Science experts.
The fact that he managed to create a justification for delivering the desires of the Brandt Report 1980 into the North and South divide in world economies, is a remarkable coincidence.
Sounds like another job for Oxburgh – should solve the problem.
In my opinion, this isn’t a huge story, though it’s not insignificant that climate alarmists do this sort of thing. Just as significant, to my mind, is the lack of reporting on it by the BBC. Can you imagine the BBC keeping their counsel if the story had instead been about Nigel Lawson and the GWPF? Harrabin would have a field day!
It’s potentially a £9 million fraud, and that’s just the grant money. Policy made on the back of such posturing is probably cost many millions more. It IS big news.
Well said but it won’t make the news – will it?
I didn’t mean to minimise the sizeof the wrongdoing – rather to suggest that the sums of money concerned are rather small beer compared to the huge sums that have been filched from the taxpayer and wasted by the whole of “green” activities over a long period of time.
Tony Blair, Gloomo Broon and the Zanu labour propaganda machine….in overdrive.
Even on cursory scrutiny, the Stern Review made a series of unquantifiable assumptions based on only on guess work and preposterous supposition, that the world’s political elite took this execrable fiction at face value……
Whose is the greater crime?
These latest revelations are really just par for the course, we know full well that, the Stern Review was utter b*ll*cks, the spin offs quoting false references and some of these totally irrelevant to the whole question of the great scam, should be expected never the cause of any real sensation.
The big problem here is, those eejits who are responsible for disbursing taxpayers funding, the bird brained dolts in the DECC and all egged on via such as those crassly prejudiced wing nuts.
Between lobbyists, politicians, the establishment and crony corporate interests a government which does not know which way is up, it’s a horlicks of dereliction, embezzlement and graft.
Certainly not virtuous but a circle of rapacious vultures hoovering up taxpayers monies but ably assisted throughout by unaccountable faceless bureaucracy – and we’ll never get to the bottom of the matter because the public finances to say the least are opaque and a Mafia like Omerta is observed by all involved.
Stern just got a gong, the real culprits will never meet the light of day but they too will have their medals – in the post and overly generous pensions to suit.
London School of Economic Crimes……..
Mafia Boss: Don Stern of Brentford.
Is any poster on here familiar with the ultimate oxymoron?
I mean an honest M.P. who might ask a question in Parliament on this issue.
Understandably I do not happen to know any, so I cannot oblige.
David Davies, Monmouth? Always willing to put across a climate sceptic viewpoint and not shy of calling out establishment (see “child” migrants from Calais).
Peter Lilley? Or John Redwood (anything to stop him driveling out ignorance about Brexit)? Were they even among those who didn’t vote for the Climate Change Act?
Check out David Rose’s previous article on Stern, Grantham et al.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html#ixzz4NvYNhq6s
Lord Stern has a history in carbon trading consultancy via the group he helped to found, Idea Carbon, http://www.ideacarbon.com/about-us/advisory-board/Lord-Stern.htm
And http://www.ideaglobal.com/IDEAcarbon_Press_Release_Final.pdf
Some background to this can be found here, from 2010: http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
The make-up of the Grantham Centres advisory board, tells a story of its own: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/about/about-the-institute/advisory-board/
These are examples of the output from the Grantham Centres: https://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/blog/climate-at-imperial/category/ipcc/
and from 2008, “Seven Years to Save the Planet”: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/event/lse-space-for-thought-lecture-series-seven-years-to-save-the-planet/
“While the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report paints a pretty bleak picture of the future, the scariest thing about it is that it may not be scary enough.
New research points not only to higher temperatures, bigger storms and more floods, but to a world in which melting polar ice drowns coastal towns and cities across the planet, and the Earth’s crust itself joins in with more earthquakes, submarine landslides, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.
Is this a world we wish to bequeath to our children and their children? If not, we may have less than 10 years to do something about it.”
You want scares? We got scares!