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.
Smokey – Oh, what a surprise, a post of mine has been censored! This is a conspiracy! Should I launch legal action against WUWT moderating policy, like the CEI are doing to RC???
Mike Bryant – I couldn’t agree more! FREE THE DATA!
Connor (20:42:46):
“Andrew – When was the last time you questioned the motivation of Anthony Watts a FOX NEWS weathercaster!”
“Connor” pontificates about ‘selective skepticism’?? Dweeb.
How about this proposal, Mr Connor: Everyone must publicly archive all of their raw and adjusted data, methodologies and code for public scrutiny within thirty days. Otherwise, it will be presumed that they have no basis for their claims.
Then we will see who is lying for money and status, and who is doing honest research. Will you, Connor, post on realclimate your demand that the CRU and their ilk must put all their data and methods on-line for public access?
Report back here with a link to your post. We want to see it.
Conner;
My approach to any new information is skeptical.
Yours may not be, that is your choice.
My comments did not include Anthony Watts, FOX News, Scarfetta, cosmic rays or any of the other distractions in your reply.
I wrote what I though of a source that you had mentioned, nothing more. You can look into the funding and motivation of the entities that you have mentioned and form your own opinion.
I am sorry if I have offended you by presenting my opinion.
Connor,
You are ill informed. There was a quite pointed discussion with Scafetta at Climate Audit on his refusal to provide his code: see http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/09/some-data-and-scripts-for-bs09/ . There was a similar discussion at Lucia’s Blackboard: see http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/scafetta-should-share-code-period/
Also note that Scafetta works at Duke, which is a private university, so your comment about FOIA requests is rather stupid.
Any chance of you apologizing for your ignorance? Nah, didn’t think so.
Andrew30 – So what you are trying to say is that Scarfetta DID release his code and NS are lying? Is that it? If not, then what the heck IS your point?
I see the moderators here are still censoring my posts! Smokey, you should be appalled by this censorship? Where is the outrage!
[ The post has now been fished out of the SPAM queue. To avoid the SPAM queue, avoid questionable words. FYI “fraud” has tossed my postings in the SPAM queue too. -mod ]
Smokety – Sure, let’s just FREE THE DATA!!!!
Connor,
What in God’s name are you talking about?
There’s nothing worse than finding out your golden data has been transformed into a giant hoax, and now you really don’t have a whole lot of faith in what’s trotted out as historical data due to the depths to which the hoaxters sank.
That’s a heapin’ helping of motivation, escpecially when it involves man’s favorite passtime: commenting about the weather.
There’s a lot of paybacks clogging the lines, time to blow them out.
Connor.
‘While trolling through the park one day….’
Connor (21:00:07) :
“So what you are trying to say is that Scarfetta DID release his code and NS are lying? Is that it?”
I always say exactly what I mean to say. I did not say anything remotely similar to what you appear to have understood.
Perhaps I should try and improve the clarity of my communication skills. It appears that there is a segment of the population that is not able to understand what I actually write.
I am sorry if the presentation of my opinion confused you. I will make an effort to use a more appropriate lexicon in future.
Dr A Burns (18:51:49) :
“The whistle should be blown on Pachauri, our railway engineer friend from the IPCC. ”
Speaking of the “Dismisser-in-Chief” … according to the U.K. Guardian, Pachauri’s already laying the groundwork for scapegoats in case Mexico City also fails. Well, the Guardian didn’t say that’s what Pachauri’s latest pronouncements amounted to, but that was my reading between the lines, so to speak:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/pachauri-predicts-and-protests-poverty-powerful-lobbies/
Connor (21:00:07) :
“So what you are trying to say is that Scarfetta DID release his code and NS are lying? Is that it? If not, then what the heck IS your point?
I see the moderators here are still censoring my posts! Smokey, you should be appalled by this censorship? Where is the outrage!”
Again…as I said in an earlier post, Connor, do not worry, we are not easily distracted.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
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
Nicola Scafetta is an honest upfront guy. I am sure that not all the facts are on the table. Lets see how this plays out.
I am glad to see that you are espousing the idea that scientific data should be published for all to see. I agree. I wish more scientist shared this view.
Connor,
Still waiting for your realclimate post, demanding that they publicly archive all their raw and adjusted data and methodologies promptly, per the Scientific Method, and fully cooperate with all skeptical requests for added information and clarification.
As if.
And I’m waiting to read your response to HGI (20:58:26). Take your time. Make it good.
M. Simon (15:39:51) :
Esp. with voters breathing down the necks of the politicians.
Ya, those politicians jump at the prospect of unhappy citizenry.
/sarc off/
Indiana Bones (15:47:47) :
And honesty gets rewarded in this world.
———————————————————-
I heard this story about a guy that told his girlfriend that he wanted her but once in a while he wanted a girl on the side—just for fun. That honesty wasn’t rewarded.
Dennis (15:54:20) :
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.”
———————————————————-
Man oh man, talk about intuition!
E.M.Smith (16:03:16) :
So, can he get the money for turning himself in? Just thinking… 😉
————————————————————–
Michael Mann wouldn’t try that. Homer Simpson would……………and…
Ok, I won’t go any farther with that.
Gary: “This invitation to snitch isn’t noble.”
Exactly. And that’s why fraudsters always have an unfair advantage.
Do we have to stoop to the level of cheaters and fanatics for reason and freedom to prevail? Is there any other way? War?
DirkH (16:05:59) :
“Dennis (15:54:20) :
[…]
Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?”
———————————————————
In college one time I found it is bad, really bad, to mix piña colada, brandy, and beer. The results of the research were memorable and, well, a bit messy. I think I can still taste the piña colada today.
No attempt should be made to replicate these results—take my word for it—the science is settled.
The climate war is about to get nasty and dirty and after years of getting rolled over by the alarmist, the tide of battle has turn. Those not willing to pursue the routed enemy should turn their eyes as the realist “with sabers held high” smash into the flanks of the scurrying warmers. “Pursue, pursue do not let them regroup!” with legal cavalry in full charge “Sabers glint as the slashing begins its rhythmic motion”
Mike Ramsey (21:18:30) :
What you said is not true. You, and New Scientist, are conflating.
Scafetta is not hiding it. This quote from the article at the link you provide shows that:
Scafetta said the code in question had been submitted to a scientific journal and that if “the journal takes its time to publish it, it is not our fault”
On the other hand Mann did not submitted his code to anyone.
JRR Canada (20:27:18) :
“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?”
You might start with this from Dr. Tim Ball.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18468
“Control of Climate Policies by Unaccountable Bureaucracies; The Canadian Example”
It includes names, dates, dollar amounts, sequences and timelines. It should give you a number of starting points. I have not had the time to look more closely into these players.
Be methodical, good luck.
E.M.Smith (16:22:06) :
Dennis (15:54:20) : Challenge: Can anyone name something of valuable that has come out of academic research?
Don’t know if this counts as ‘valuable’ but Bose radio technology. Wasn’t exactly research, actually was a term paper.