exposed: how top university helped secure £9million of your money by passing off rivals' research as its own... to bankroll climate change agenda - solar energy traffic lights

One of the world's leading institutions to study the effects of global warming has repeatedly claimed appreciation for the work done by competitors and used it to win millions of dollars from taxpayers.
A survey by The Post on Sunday also showed that when the economic and policy center for climate change (CCCEP)
In an effort to secure more government funding, it claims that it is responsible for the work published before the organization exists.
Last night, a leading professor described our evidence that his work was misrepresented as "a case of obvious fraud-using deception for economic gain ".
Since 2008, CCCEP president has been Nick Stern, a prominent global advocate for tackling climate change.
He is also the dean of the British Academy, an invitation-
Only society reserved for the academic elite.
It grants millions of dollars to researchers and Lord Stern's own organization.
On Friday, the CCCEP, based at the London School of Economics and the University of Leeds, will hold a celebration at the Royal Society of London to commemorate their peers.
Experts and officials from all over the world are present to commemorate 700-
Report on the economic impact of climate change.
The review was commissioned by the Blair government.
The review believes that the world must take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, otherwise the cost will be much higher in the future.
It has had a strong impact on successive British governments and international institutions.
Part of the CCCEP's official mission, which often boasts in public reports, is to lobby Lord Stern for policies that justify the UK and foreign governments, as well as the UN climate talks.
Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted that it "made a mistake" by applying for credits for research that it did not fund, as well as for papers published by competitors.
It is regrettable, he said, but mistakes can happen . . . . . . We will take steps next week to fix these mistakes.
Sunday Post Today's survey shows that scholars whose work has been distorted react angrily to it.
Professor Richard Tolle, an expert in climate change economics at the University of Sussex, said: "applying for credits for a paper you don't support is a serious misconduct, and using it to update the grant is a fraud.
I have never had such a thing before. It stinks.
Professor Tol is co-author of the paper cited by CCCEP
The author was published online in July 31, 2008 by the Journal of ecological economics.
At that time, he and lead author David Antinoff were staff at the Dublin Institute of Economics and Society. Their co-
Author Cameron Hepburn is at Oxford University.
The study on "marginal costs of climate change" was funded by the European Commission and the Swedish Institute for the environment.
CCCEP's own first annual report shows that it did not start work until October 1, 2008, and that it was building itself most of the time, even in the first few months.
It hired its first executive in that fall and did not hold its first meeting of the academic "steering group" until February 24, 2009.
However, in the list of tender documents for funds submitted to ESRC, it falsely claimed that the eco-economics paper was published in 2009 and claimed that the paper was credit.
Professor Tol said: "Our paper has nothing to do with CCCEP.
This is written in David antenov's master's thesis.
At that time, CCCEP did not exist and was only established after the publication of the paper.
Fraud is cheating for economic benefit.
This is it.
It is confusing that CCCEP sends data to the ESRC for two separate publication lists that should be "owned" and although they mostly overlap, they are not the same.
Both are misleading, however.
The first list is a compilation of 276 journal articles submitted at the end of 2012, titled "cccep publications from October 2008 to August 2012 ".
The submissions also included dozens of news works.
Many of them were written by CCCEP spokesman Mr. Ward on the subject of Donald Trump's Scottish golf course and a fierce attack on climate change skeptics.
When it submits this list, it includes the documents submitted jointly
Written by Professor Tol, CCCEP has received a reward of £ 4.
7 million for ESRC, 4 more. 4 million.
It received the payment for the period from 2013 to 2018.
The center has also received generous funding from other government and private sources such as US green billionaire Jeremy Grantham.
This year, it received a grant of £ 374,000 for the payment of three-
The annual CCCEP scholarship, hosted by the British Academy, is hosted by Lord Stern.
These grants have made it one of the world's most well-funded institutions of its kind, earning more than £ 30 million since 2008.
Lord Stern also became rich through his work on climate change.
A year ago, his company, NS Economics, was founded to handle his public speaking income when the company's bank balance was 349,000.
He was also appointed as consultant director for Abengoa SA, a large solar company in Spain.
The newspaper found more documents on the list sent to ESRC from 2008 to 2012, which were actually completed before the CCCEP was established.
One of them, co-written with CCCEP
Director Simon Dietz is Lord Stern himself-first published in April 23, 2008, six months before the opening of the CCCEP.
Another paper is a study led by Natalie Sukel, who is now working at the University of Southampton, involving the "cultural identity" of the Peak District National Park ".
Suckall MS and her colleagues found that white, middle-class tourists prefer scenery to workers or ethnic minorities-a topic that has nothing to do with climate change.
The paper was first sent to the Journal of Environmental Management in March 2007, accepted in revised form in June of the following year, and published in July 30, 2008, two months earlier than the existence of CCCEP.
Another example is a study co-led by Professor Tol.
Professor Cameron Hepburn
He's got a part from 2010.
In addition to his position in Oxford, he also held a time position at the London School of Economics.
However, his paper on "social discounting under uncertainty" was first submitted in 2006 and published online in September 5, 2008, four weeks before the CCCEP began operating.
Mr. Ward admitted that it was a "mistake" to tell ESRC that the total seven studies identified by MoS were funded by CCCEP ".
But he insisted that the list's claim that some of them were published in 2009 was not misleading because it was when they appeared on paper.
The editor of the journal research integrity and peer review, former head of the international supervisory body's publishing ethics committee, Dr. Elizabeth Vogel, objected to this.
"Everyone sees the online date as the actual publication date," she said.
It is believed to be released on the day of launch.
These and other documents clearly play a direct role in the ESRC decision to award a second £ 4 document. 4 million grant.
But the second list is the online record of CCCEP publications, updated once a month, and published on the government's research funding website, the research portal, which is equally questionable, this shows that CCCEP has been exaggerating its reputation and scale of activities for many years without reason.
Some of the items on this list constitute a blatant theft of other items.
For example, in 2011, Kersty Hobson, then at Oxford University, is currently a professor at Cardiff University and is the lead author of a paper entitled "public response to climate change. Her co-
Author Simon Niemeyer is at the Australian National University in Canberra.
She told the Post on Sunday: "The newspaper has nothing to do with CCCEP.
It is fully funded by the Australian Research Council.
Another case is a study led by Professor Stephen Duncan of the University of Oxford on "best fishing fish stocks for a period of time"
Different discount rates ", this is a highly technical paper based on data from the anchovy industry in Peru in the 1970 s.
Professor Duncan said: "The study was not funded by CCCEP.
It was the idea of the three of us at Oxford, when we all lived here.
Ward objected, claiming that CCCEP should be "properly recognized" because Professor Hepburn wasauthor.
Other papers on the study inventory Gateway have nothing to do with climate change and CCCEP goals.
A selection experiment called "traffic lights and food selection: to study the relationship between nutrition food labels and prices.
Professor Kelvin Balcombe, lead author at the University of Reading, said: "I certainly don't think it is appropriate to use it as an output of the CCCEP.
This has nothing to do with climate change.
They have nothing to do with it.
Ward admitted that it was wrong to put this issue on the list, and a paper by Diana winhold of the London School of Economics on noise pollution and its impact on human well-being was also wrong.
He said some publications were uploaded incorrectly.
Measures are needed to solve this problem.
Academic funding experts were surprised by our investigation.
From 2010 to 2014, Lord Willetts, minister of British universities, said: "There is an assumption that scholars are bound by moral principles.
The system relies on trust and administrator supervision.
Dr. Wager said: "It's very troublesome that the funder did not find this.
If you apply for a job credit when you shouldn't, this is unfair to other agencies that follow the rules.
Lord donagee, a former Labor minister and 25-year governor of the London Stock Exchange, called for an investigation, saying: "In order to maintain the academic integrity of the London Stock Exchange, it is necessary for the relevant financial authorities to conduct a comprehensive investigation.
ESRC said that the second phase of the CCCEP Grant had been paid because the council concluded that "the work of the center was excellent ".
Mr. Ward said that CCCEP is a "world-class university research center" when it asked ESRC to provide the second part of the funding, it is submitted in all "520 research and policy output" and 139 media articles.
He added: "We reject any suggestion that we misrepresent the central output in the document submitted to midterm review.
"Our investigation is to" deny climate change, "he said ".