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 www.climategate.com)
Here’s that email in full:
Hi,
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.
Dennis (15:54:20) : Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?
——————————
How about the entire biotechnology industry ??
Dennis, do not confuse those half-wits with real scientists.
WRT peoples inherent need to ensure that they continue to get paid… regardless of evidence that contradicts their position.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr.
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked, 1935
REF: http://www.online-literature.com/upton_sinclair/
What a snearing piece of amateurism! Hasn’t this fellow got something of substance to work on? This is classic UK gutter press fluff!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” – Nietzsche, BG&E §146
This is classless.
The whistleblowers will come forward regardless, if they have the info and the “orientation”. If they are in the AGW camp, no amount of money will entice them. And now, it will easier to paint the information as tainted.
Really not something I’d want to be associated with, personally.
The whistle should be blown on Pachauri, our railway engineer friend from the IPCC.
K Ramamoorthy, a High Court Delhi Judge in a judgement stated Pachauri and his mates “have suppressed material facts and they have sworn to false affidavits.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/hypocrite-as-well-as-liar.html
This is independent of the billions he is scamming with AGW:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/2683-pachauris-lucrative-world-of-climate-change
rewarding whisleblowers is fine by me. hey, there’s no limit to what the CRU ‘whistleblower’ deserves – priceless!
now we have:
internal investigation at CRU
internal investigaton at Penn
internal investigation at BBC
on/off internal investigation of IPCC
see something wrong with these so-called investigations?
then we have the demand by Senator Inhofe and a few other republicans for an independent investigation of IPCC, with no response it seems.
what we need are INDEPENDENT investigations for all involved and that includes more than the above, as we all know.
for now, let’s make sure we spread the information around as widely as possible because the media will not do it.
More T-shirts:
How about ‘Climate Modeller – Hockey Sticks have more fun!
How about ‘Climate Modeller – Have station will travel!
The recovery would not necessarily be from the individual, the recovery could easily be from the University due to insufficient oversight and poor management practices… such as the failure to find the flaws in the data used in various papers, failure to cooperate with FOI requests by the researcher and therefore failure to properly supervise the grantee, failure to use due caution in evaluating the controls on grant money as alluded to in several of the leaked emails…
The thing that should be of greatest concern for the management of the University and the immediate supervisors of his partner in data fudging, J. Hansen is that they have prospered under a favorable blind eye from several administrations and the limelight is changing color and becoming very bright. What was overlooked and winked at like accepting gifts and other cash while on federal procurement rules will be looked at again while Murtha and Specter are gone or fighting for their lives. Once the U itself is under assault there will be no cover left for the proximate cause of the problem.
Not a pretty picture no matter how hard they worked to get themselves into that pickle.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the secretary or other staff member turns him in.
If I was to receive $12 million with the penalty being that I will never be able to work again in the industry, I think that I should weep all of the way to the bank (and then to my Condo in Miami!).
Hate to burst the bubble, really, I do…but Penn, or most any other university would never actually DO anything to jeopardize their image, much less funds. Sure, they’ll put on a good show, but their best fog machines will be covering up the shredders runnin’ 24/7.
I know, I’m watching it happen right here at good ole UNR. Whistleblowers are treated to the full wrath of the administration.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20091212/NEWS/912120346/Judge-partially-grants-petition-in-UNR-corruption-suit
But I’m not losing hope. At least Mann and his cohorts are being exposed for what they are.
“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 ?”
If an expert cannot explain a concept, in everyday language, to the average, intelligent high school student, then it is a fair bet that he does not understand the subject. Pompous, obscurantist language should not be mistaken for wisdom.
Ambulance-chasing lawyers are as bad as disreputable scientists. This invitation to snitch isn’t noble. It’s an appeal to get rich quick. The folks at the Earth System Science Center shouldn’t be subjected to this. If it’s typical of most academic research operations, most are grad students and post-docs just trying to build careers. Dr. Mann’s dubious actions and character shouldn’t tar them.
Frankly, I don’t like the implied endorsement of the idea by WUWT.
Gary: “Frankly, I don’t like the implied endorsement of the idea by WUWT.”
The nice thing about WUWT is that they REPORT the news, present several sides and let the chips fall where they may. You’re saying this should be suppressed? If WUWT was actually doing that, you comment certainly would not see the light of day.
If you’re truly interested in “grad students and post-docs just trying to build careers”, you’d be the first to call for a full and completely independent investigation to lift the cloud from a generally fine university. Otherwise, the grad students would best burn their diplomas than claim to be a product of Penn State.
pat (18:55:50) :
rewarding whisleblowers is fine by me. hey, there’s no limit to what the CRU ‘whistleblower’ deserves – priceless!
now we have:
internal investigation at CRU
internal investigaton at Penn
internal investigation at BBC
on/off internal investigation of IPCC
see something wrong with these so-called investigations?
then we have the demand by Senator Inhofe and a few other republicans for an independent investigation of IPCC, with no response it seems.
what we need are INDEPENDENT investigations for all involved and that includes more than the above, as we all know.
for now, let’s make sure we spread the information around as widely as possible because the media will not do it.
First the internal investigation and the whitewash. then it becomes a conspiracy which means deeper pockets, criminal charges and plea bargaining.
Much more fun 🙂
Why isn’t this being shouted from the rooftops here and at Climate Audit???
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18307-sceptical-climate-researcher-wont-divulge-key-program.html
Where is the code! I demand an audit! When will the flood of FOIA request begin?!
… Or are you a bunch of shameless hypocrites?
Gary (19:42:28) :
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
Leo Tolstoy (translation)
If the people who know do nothing then they are actually helping.
Anyone helping may someday share the ‘tar’.
Somtimes doing nothing, isn’t.
Nice way to say happy new year, to Mann and co tho.Environment Canada insists the science for AWG is robust,but has been unable? unwilling? to supply reference list of same.Any clue as to who was responsible for reviewing the file before govt accepted IPCC science?What civil servant can be compelled to answer?Zero response from Minister of Enviroment,May 2009 till now.Thats to 2 written snail mail enquiries,numerous emails to dept no response.I suspect systemic failure of the nanny state,the CRU letters imply that no one did their homework in the Canadian Govt and $billions have been wasted.Canada is awash in govt protection agencies and the climategate data implies they are all PC frauds living off the taxpayer, where do I pry for info?Any ideas?Who is already doing follow up investigations?
Connor (20:09:51),
Thanx for that link! Did you happen to read the comments under the article? No?? Well, no wonder you’re calling the wrong side hypocrites. It’s a great contrast between WUWT and New Scientist, seeing that the majority of NS comments were censored out. The ones that were let through give you an idea of what the rest said, in spades.
Also read the link-within-the-link to the odious Mr “Heaven’s” smarmy apologia for all things alarmist. Really, you couldn’t have picked a better article to show the bankruptcy of the integrity-challenged globaloney CRU. You’re not one of that disreputable crowd, are you?
Connor (20:09:51);
Whenever presented with any information one should consider the source and the motivation of both the presenter and mechanism that funded or enabled the creation of the information. Only then should one examine the information.
I would not consider New Scientist to be a credible source of information, but that is only my opnion.
About ‘New Scientist’
New Scientist is printed by Reed Business Information Ltd, a subsidiary of Reed Elsevier. Reed Elsevier is owned by The Reed Elsevier group is a dual-listed company consisting of Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV.
At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. is being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favorable to Merck drugs. Merck has described the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine as a “complimentary publication”, denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals. In May 2009, Elsevier released a statement by Michael Hansen regarding the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, conceding that these were “sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures”.
Also: “Herman van Campenhout is Chief Executive Officer of Science & Technology at Elsevier … Prior to joining RBI, Herman spent 17 years with the Royal Dutch Shell Group”, Royal Dutch Shell provides funding to the CRU.
So, the people that own, control, publish and distribute New Scientist print ‘science for money’ and the ‘Science and Technology Division’ is run by an ex Royal Dutch Shell executive.
Gary: “Frankly, I don’t like the implied endorsement of the idea by WUWT.”
I, for one, saw no implied endorsement. However if the feds are going to pass out our money, I’d rather see a one time check to whistleblowers than the continual skinning we’ve been taking at the hands of Mann and his alarmist ilk.
Free the data! Free the code! We paid for it…
Connor (20:09:51) :
Why isn’t this being shouted from the rooftops here and at Climate Audit???
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18307-sceptical-climate-researcher-wont-divulge-key-program.html
Where is the code! I demand an audit! When will the flood of FOIA request begin?!
… Or are you a bunch of shameless hypocrites?
NO. Are you???
The DEFINING difference is that Scafetta’s work (right or wrong)….unlike that of Mann and company…is NOT being used to determine TRILLIONS of dollars of economic diversion and theft…..to feed the AGW machine.
That is the defining difference.
And on the skeptic side….there are plenty of A-lists who seriously question Scafetta.
Listen to Leif chime in for a hot minute…..you definitely will not see a consensus on this side.
So in reality, this weak attempt by NewScientist is nothing but a big fat red herring in an attempt to change the subject and shift the focus.
Don’t worry, Connor….we are not easily distracted.
But…by the same token, I will not stoop so low as to call you a “shameless hypocrite.”
Nay. You are just misguided.
Scafetta’s actions do not have any bearing WHATSOEVER on the documented fraud of the hockey team.
You are confusing two SEPARATE issues.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey – You are just deflecting now. The whole house of cards that is cosmic ray theory has come tumbling down with a deafening crash! This PROVES beyond all doubt that cosmic ray proponents are lying criminals covering up their fraud!! If Scarfetta is doing fraud then Linzden must be too, it is all a fraud!! And on the public dollar too! WAAAH! It’s a conspiracy! AGW theory has been vindicated!! This is definitive proof tha all alternative explanations MUST be fraudulent! I want an audit! I want to see these scurrilous frauds flooded with a deluge of crippling FOIA requests! I want a whistleblower to expose the whole fraud and claim his squillions of dollars that Scarfetta and all other cosmic ray researchers have been dudding the public out of. And I want it now!!!
Andrew – When was the last time you questioned the motivation of Anthony Watts a FOX NEWS weathercaster!
I love the smell of selective scepticism in the morning!
So, does the fact that NS is published by a publishing company mean that Scarfetta has happily handed over the code? Or are you just deflecting with anything you can think of to deny that ALL cosmic ray theory is now suspect?
[ I’ve not seen Anthony on Fox, and I think he no longer does live broadcasts, but he can reply if he read this. -mod ]