Climategate: Michael Mann's very unhappy New Year

As I said yesterday, one of our jobs this year is to wipe the complacent smiles off the smug faces of the lobbyists, “experts”, “scientists”, politicians and activists pushing AGW.

This is why I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock. When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research.

Under US law, regardless of whether or not a prosecution results, the whistleblower stands to make very large sums of money: it is based on a percentage of the total  government funds  which have been misused, in this case perhaps as much as $50 million. (Hat tip: John O’Sullivan of the wonderful new campaigning site

Here’s that email in full:


Greetings and best wishes for a prosperous New Year.

National Search

After the recent whistleblower revelations of emails between climate researchers and data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, there are on-going investigations into potential fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US.  I am assisting interested parties who may have details of fraud in climate research to make contact with the proper authorities, and to share in the rewards paid when the funds are recovered.

Whistleblower Rewards Program

The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration.  The US Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act.  It allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud to share in the recovery of federal funds.  This reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed.  The program is almost completely reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their institutions.

Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits

Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on how to report federal fraud.  He has an extensive background in representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud cases, including Educational/ Research Grant Fraud.  According to Mr Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers. ”

If you know of anyone who might have details about fraudulent statements or actions by recipients of federal grant funds for climate research, please have them contact me immediately at the below email or cell phone.  Alternatively, they may also contact Mr Hersch directly,  and let him know that they were referred by me.  All communications are completely confidential.  They may want to consider using a third party email service (Yahoo, Hotmail, or other) instead of work email to communicate.

30% of $50 million is more than $12 million.  Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it.

Our country, and in fact, the entire world is counting on someone to stand up and tell the truth about climate research. The effects of moving forward with taxes and policies based on fraudulent science could potentially cripple the US economy and cost lives and jobs for generations.

Look forward to hearing from you.

All the best

Kent Clizbe

Happy New Year, Climategaters.

Read original story here with comments.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jim Carson

Lovely thought, but the money’s gone. And the only reward is based on what recoverable. Which is nothing.

Fred from Canuckistan . . .

It would be nice to see some of the Climategaters under oath in a court being grilled by a skilled cross exaiminer.

Probably will get tagged by the SPAM filter. Most of these guys will likley not even see this e-mail. Too bad, would be good to have some insider wistle blowers


That crew isn’t paranoid enough? I can’t say I can consider this a positive step. If someone comes forward, that’s one thing –trolling for them in a public (and publicized) manner like this is something else.

Haha poor Michael Mann 🙂

Henry chance

The parents participating in the Baloon boy travesty are well under way in paying with their prison time. Mann is months from confrontation. Is Mann collecting donations for his legal defense?


This must be a larger version of the “Secret Witness” program.
Ask not for whom the Bus rolls, it rolls for thee.


Sadly it will more than likely just be used by the usual suspects as proof that powerful corporate interests are trying to persecute the good doctor Mann.

The worm is really starting to turn in the UK press. James Delingpole and Simon Heffer have joined Christopher Booker (all from the Daily/Sunday Telegraph) in bloody the nose of the Warm Mongers. The Daily Express hopped over to the sceptic side last year in a big way – reflecting opinion of the readership rather than leading it.
And today we get this mother of all announcements from the BBC trust
This is probably due to the thousands of letter the Trust has received from sceptics in recent months and is the best news since the Climategate e-mails were released.
These are happy days indeed.

George E. Smith

Well I haven’t read the article yet; but my first reaction; though fully supportive of misconduct whistle blowers; I don’t hold much stock in the idea of bribing colleagues to rat on a fellow worker.
Hey if you believe it is misconduct, rat all you like; and the sooner the betetr.
But if you are a REAL scientist, shouldn’t you want to report the truth; even if it isn’t going to net you a brass razoo for doing so.
Not speaking up without being bribed, is to me almost as bad as being one of the unindicted co-conspirators.
Well maybe I’m just funny that way.
On a related issue, I just stumbled across a letter to Physics Today, for May 2009 from Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol; that seems somehow like a name we are familiar with.
He professes to be a climate reasearcher, and he thinks nano-technology and climate science are sort of parallel universes. Well he didn’t use those words; but you get the idea, so he referecnes Michael Crichton’s fictional account of nano-tech gone wild.
But more to the subject at hand, Knorr refers to a TV demonstration of CO2 “greenhouse effect as demonstrated by one Pieter Tans from NOAA’s Earth Systems Laboratory. Seems we have heard of this phony demonstration before.
The question I would ask Wolfgang Knorr, would be, if he has ever thought of (being a lcimate researcher) repeating Pieter Tans’ TV expose, but substituting pure H2O instead of pure CO2, and see what sort of GHG effect he3 can observe; or in that instance sans CO2, would he expect to see only a FEEDBACK effect, but no GREENHOUSE effect.
Get back to us on that Wolfgang, after you have done the experiment.
But to your point as to whether there is a debate about the existance of a CO2 greenhouse effect. Yes I actually know some real people who profess that vociferously; the absence of any such thing that is.
But I don’t know a single soul who is a serious skeptic about anthropogenicmanmade global warming, and the coming anthropogenicmanmade computer model prediction of catastrophe; who doesn’t accept that CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas, and that it does intercept some surface emitted LWIR radiation, and thereby increases the local atmospheric temperature a bit. So I don’t see a cult of denial about that, despite your assertions. But a lot of people do believe that the rest of the climate system beside CO2 does come to the rescue, to prevent the remotest possibility of the catastrophe, which you so fervently believe in.
Knorr asserts (in the letter) “In the case of the greenhouse effect, people are wary of the complicated climate models that only a few experts understand.”
Well whoop de do, Wolfgang, and where do you place yourself; in the elite panel of experts; who received the stone tablets on the mountain; or are you too among us incognoscenti ?
Talk about a self serving promotional exercise; Wolfy, you are almost as pompous as your very famous ancient namesake; at least his real talents are seldom under dispute.
But as to Dr Mann’s new year; I’m all for open investigation, to see if there is real fire behind the smoke; but let’s not make it a who wants to be a millionair farce.

I doubt that many of Mann’s co-workers will even consider the money because they are usually people hand-picked by Mann for their loyalty – its how the academic greasy pole works.
The potential whistleblower will know that they will probably never work in climate science again. The evidence for deliberate misconduct has got to be compelling prima facae evidence or the whistleblower will find it very uncomfortable in a court to defend him/herself.
Mann is a past master at making claims of fossil-fuel conspiracies of everyone who dares oppose him and his acolytes will agree with him.
More importantly, the current administration and Democratic majority Congress is unlikely to do much to prosecute. If the mid-terms turn the Congress sharply Republican then things might get a lot dicier but at the moment Mann is safe IMHO

I have heard from some one inside the Penn State shop that he expects that no one will turn States evidence. Collegiality.
The person did mention that Pennsylvania politicians are drawing a LOT of heat (heh) because of ClimateGate. The word IS getting out.

james griffin

It’s a start… for Jones, Wigley,Gore and Hansen


I’m not too fond of this approach. The distasteful aspects are all pretty obvious.
Plus I don’t think it’s going to be very effective. The complete story of what Mann did (or did not do) is going to take a painstaking marshaling of complex evidence by someone who takes the time to understand the scientific issues. The real problem with the Penn State investigation is that this type of review is unlikely to happen. This is partly because the investigators lack subpoena power, partly because they lack the investigative and prosecutorial skill to conduct the case and (perhaps) because they will be reluctant to turn over too many rocks.
Mann is obviously a very good academic politician. No crime there, but he is going to have the upper hand here.


Huge federal whistleblower awards are not BS, “merely anecdotal”, or trivial.
A friend in the Washington DC area who sometimes serves as an expert witness in these cases (fraud against the U.S. government) told me of two very recent awards of $15+ million and $35+ million to individual whistleblowers in DC Metro.
Normal, everyday government workers who saw some funny business, documented it, and reported it.

David L. Hagen

Steve McIntyre is systematically exploring the Climategate materials. e.g.
Climategatekeeping: the Nature Intervention

Atomic Hairdryer

Re Jim Carson (14:10:02) :
Lovely thought, but the money’s gone. And the only reward is based on what recoverable. Which is nothing.

With a sharp lawyer(s), don’t count on that. Mann’s assets from book deals and PR work may be one option, larger option is to go after organisations that have profited from the fraud. This is where folks in the US perhaps have the advantage over us in the UK with your lawyers and class action system.


How about something like this?

From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes

These climategate fraudsters should have their personal finances audited as well.


“We are turning up the heat in pursuit of prosecutions against scientists involved in the recent Climategate scandal. Our dedicated group of volunteers working with are behind a plan to entice co-workers of discredited Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann to turn whistleblowers in return for millions of dollars in federal reward money. Mann is famous for his emails obtained from the East Anglia University server hacking, and for creating the widely disputed ‘hockey stick’ graph that is depicted in Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.””
Top fraud attorney seeks climategate Whistleblowers


Happy New Year, Climategaters.
Sets entirely the wrong tone to this email. I very much doubt it will have any effect.

John Egan

Witch hunts –
Regardless of the political affiliations of the witches and the hunters –
Are never very pleasant affairs.


Discover Magazine starting to come around riding on someone else’s coat tails?
That Washington Post Piece on Science Communication and ClimateGate


It’s a stupid email for all the reasons I see others have covered so well.
This whole post is unworthy of this site.

I would rather see Mr. Mann busted for his poor work.


david (14:47:22) :
You may be correct about Penn State, but not about the US Dept. of Justice.
That’s Federal money what’s been allegedly misappropriated, and that’ll get plenty of longarm-of-the-law attention. There’s blood scent in the water, and they’re a’ coming to get some.
Advantage DOJ: In times of grant $$$ being lean, the carrot is on the stick.
That’s an offer that can’t be easily refused.
Slicker & bigger fish than Michael Mann have found themselves on the wrong side of the law, and regretted it. Don’t look for big Pols to save him, they may be looking for bus fodder to save themselves.

It is not going to, and is not designed to, work.
It is fairly clear to me that this is a publicity stunt by the legal firm involved. Just look at the free advertising they are getting, and there will be lots more.
That ‘eco’ website that reported evenly on climategate (in reply in another thread) is selling stuff as well. people are just cashing in on the new popularity. I’ve no objections as it is better than the only cashing in so far that has been from Gore and his ilk, and web sites ramping up the scare factor.
Now how can I get my company name across so much of the web, and even into the MSM? Hmmmmm….
Anyone got any good ideas?


it is NOT based on the total fraud but on the total $ recovered
and since most research is cost reimbursement based, the amount of $ recovered will likely be minimal


A rule of anything large and bureaucractic is this:
There are always more leaks.

ian middleton

If Mann is capable of creating a hockystick out of nothing he is more than capable of creating a senario where he will look like a whistleblower. Thereby ensuring funding for the next 5 years. He will be as slippery as a wet bar of soap covered in oil.

I’m not too fond of this approach. The distasteful aspects are all pretty obvious.
There are laws. And given probable cause I’d expect that a notification of the laws is in order. Esp. with voters breathing down the necks of the politicians.

Roger Knights

M. Simon (14:45:57) :
I have heard from some one inside the Penn State shop that he expects that no one will turn States evidence. Collegiality.

Yeah, but what about his former underlings at the U. of VA? Less collegiality there, mayhap.

Wm T Sherman

There is enough evidence without any insiders providing help. Paper trail. Obstruction of justice if evidence is destroyed. Any deals will probably be with people implicated.

Indiana Bones

From the Daily Mail explosion:
“In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC’s stance on climate change.
Peter Barron said it was ‘not the corporation’s job to save the planet’. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience, rather than giving them ‘information’.
Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.”
Read more:
The story is unhappy. Why do we NEED whistleblowers? Because a few people think they can roll over the little guy by “changing what the peer-review process is” (paraphrased.) On the other hand, one of the only ways to handle corruption is to make it pay. And thievery in the high halls of academia should be no more shielded than in Congress, the Executive suite or on a Military base. Just because they got fancy degrees does not mean they can lie, cheat and steal.
A few $35M recovery awards and manipulators will get the message. You want to run your show like organized crime? You get treated like organized crime. And honesty gets rewarded in this world.

Michael In Sydney

He’s right, 30% of $50m is more than $12m…it is exactly $15m, how hard is that math to get right?

Ed Murphy

The winter 2009 – 2010 cold stress death numbers will likely be a shock. Given the severe cold now in place. The numbers are likely larger when you factor in the numbers of carcasses too decomposed to establish cause of death and possible ‘hide the numbers’.
FWC News – FWC releases preliminary 2009 manatee mortality data
The high number of manatees affected by cold stress during the winter months of 2008-2009 can, in part, explain the higher-than-average number of manatee deaths last year. Biologists documented a record high of 56 cold stress-related deaths in 2009, which was more than double the five-year average. Biologists also documented high numbers of watercraft-related and perinatal (newborn) deaths – the two most commonly documented causes of death in 2009.
Statewide, 72 deaths from cold stress were reported during winter 2008-2009. This number is twice as high as the most recent five-winter average.
(More than double)


In many organisations if you do not verbally agree with AGW you will not get a job or contract work, and you won’t get a career. It is highly unlikely all researchers are so committed, even if they would never say it publicly. This would give them a chance to be free and cleanse their souls.
Certainly there is at least one person at CRU who felt so moved and look what effect he/she is having. They may be nervous at being discovered and sacked but so far they have done well.
I think I need to get a T-shirt printed : ‘Climate Modeller – Will Prove Anything For Money’


In Eisenhower’s industrial complex speech, he also said
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
Is even more Federal whistle blower money the answer or is it time to slash Federal funding of university research to the bone?
If the professors had to beg the private sector for funds, their activities might actually benefit humanity.
Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?


This is a silly and demeaning piece of legal ambulance chasing.
The Federal statutes which apply were designed to winkle out fraud in goverment procurement. They share a substantial portion (typically 15%) of the recovery from overcharges with the whistle blower. Numerous lawsuits are in process in the defense industry initiated as a result of this.
In this case, there is no procurement, so the aggrieved party would have to be the legislature that passed laws on the basis of bad information generated by a conspiracy.
At best, the outcome might be that no sensible lawmaker listens to scientists in the future. More likely is that funding for scientists of all stripes will be curtailed, because the recommendations of some, endorsed by all the big names in the community were not just wrong, but visibly mistaken.


Freezing cold and blizzard snows are practically shutting down the entire northern hemisphere. Money is now being lost due to diminished economic activity at a phenomenal rate. The money being spent and lost is supposed to be mitigated by accurate climate predictions. The wealthy elite are being hit hard by their own doing. They were largely responsible for promoting the Man-made global warming scam. Now they get to reap what they sowed. Accurate predictions of climate activity would have mitigated their loses and gotten the sheeple ready to deal with it. Too late now.

So, can he get the money for turning himself in? Just thinking… 😉


“Anticlimactic (15:52:20) :
I think I need to get a T-shirt printed : ‘Climate Modeller – Will Prove Anything For Money’”
Make that ‘Climate Modeller – Will Prove Anything For Food’


“Dennis (15:54:20) :
Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?”
MP3. DVB. That was easy.


The whistleblower program is a way out for those that recognize wrong doing. Financial motivation is secondary. The climategate whistleblower is just the tip of an iceberg that’s getting bigger .


Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (14:14:48) :
>Probably will get tagged by the SPAM filter. Most of these guys will likley not even see this e-mail. Too bad, would be good to have some insider wistle blowers
I’m sure they all read WUWT everyday. Even if they don’t, this thing is all over the web. So don’t worry. Anytime now, we’ll get a taker.


Nice to see that the former CIA guy does not use the term “hacker” but instead goes directly for the whistle-blower that leaked the emails… refreshing!
They should send the email to the IT guys instead.
[ The I.T. guys will know… trust me… -mod]


Take out a newspaper ad in the student newspaper. If they’ll let you. Billboard. I hate to suggest it, but, the young republicans will help.


Maybe Michael Mann himself might be willing to act on the offer on the condition that he’d be offered full immunity (and money, of course). Now, that would be an extremely cool yet devastating blow to the warmist camp. Is there a credit organization who would be willing to front him some substantial money after examining his evidence and its potential payoff?
Just dreaming, but one never knows.

Dennis (15:54:20) : Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?
Nuclear reactor. First one built under the bleachers at a university… (Imagine doing that today!)

Next we need to take on the ones that push the “polar brown bear” extinction myths.

Indiana Bones

Dennis (15:54:20) :
Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?

Jonas Salk attended NYU Medical School and later at University of Pittsburg School of Medicine, developed the vaccine that ended polio with funding from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.
Of course there is much that is positive coming from the university research system the world over. In this case we have a few bad, very bad eggs who have commandeered the process. They used strong arm, looter tactics to intimidate usually meek science types – a reason they were so successful. Combined with agit-prop activists (Move On) and a fawning media, they pursued an agenda they thought perfect.
The mistake was that energy alternatives and sustainability needed doctored science to make it work. This is wrong. It corrupted the science and method, and caused rational people to roll their eyes. Then the whole campaign got usurped by the globalists who tried to leverage it into a world government agenda. At a cost to national economies of billions of dollars. Big money – big battles.
Recovered funds? There are billions in the pipeline to study “climate change.” People who bring an end to that scam will cause contract cancellations and funds “recovered.” It is big money – do not doubt it. But the need for ending foreign oil imports remains. Alternative energy and clean domestic energy resources are valid and necessary for a strong economy and national security.