Hadley/CRU files: Follow the money

The files leaked from the Hadley Centre contain a number of documents that show funding received, and a number more dealing with grant proposals:

defra.pdf: A grant request asking for £902,213 from the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2007/8)

"tims contracts.xls": 14 contracts between 1994 and 2003, totalling £937,936.

"Adam budget.doc": a 2004 document for the ADAM Consortium, with a budget of £12M.

I'm still going through the thousands of files and emails, so there may be others, but this is around £14M so far.

My point here is that there is a motivation for Dr. Jones and company to want to publicize the most sensational (if unlikely) results and suppress conflicting or banal (although more likely) results, as the more press attention for the CRU, the easier to obtain new grants.

The file "A Report of the Successful Grant Writing Meeting 22 Nov 2000.doc" shows an (unsurprising) interest in attracting funding:

Research contract income is very important to the School, representing approximately half our total income. It supports the contract researchers in the School and generates the overheads that support many of the technical and administrative staff. This research activity also generates the publications that form the basis of the RAE assessment which controls the level of the other main component of the School’s income from the government. The component of the research income also controls our PhD studentship allocation from NERC and EPSRC.

Note that I am NOT accusing the staff of Hadley/CRU of suppressing scientific results. I am saying that sensational results would have a likely positive effect on their organization: finding levels, staffing levels, students, etc.

Where this meets the road is with their refusal to release the data they hold. Their attitude is essentially "trust us not to hype extreme but unlikely scenarios".