This story has legs now, as I predicted in this piece yesterday “The ‘RICO 20 letter’ to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla’s IGES website amid financial concerns” the Streisand Effect has been unleashed. Now, instead of explaining why the RICO 20 letter was mysteriously withdrawn from the IGES website after questions began to be asked about the millions of dollars that George Mason’s Jagadish Shukla apparently has received, some of it while apparently “double dipping” against university policy, all the while claiming climate skeptics are the recipients of money that should be prosecuted under the RICO act, we find this curious missive posted in place of the RICO20 letter at the URL where it previously resided:
Source: http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf
“Inadvertently placed on this web site”? I think not, especially since that URL was the “go to” given in their press release about the letter and referenced in numerous news outlets, without so much as a peep of a correction for over a month while that story ran wild. All of the sudden it was posted in the wrong place?
I call that explanation “BS of the highest order”. He got caught with his pants down, tables have turned, and now its damage control, and badly done damage control at that, since the actions are making the situation with Shukla even more suspect.
Then there’s the apparent nepotism going on with all that public money used to fund Shukla’s climate dreams:
IGES Personnel:
President Shukla, Jagadish
Business Manager Shukla, Anastasia
Assistant Business Manager Shukla, Sonia
Director, COLA Kinter, James
Assistant to the President Shukla, Sonia
Source: http://www.iges.org/aboutiges.html
And, Steve McIntyre had called out one of the signatories, Barry Klinger, over untrue claims in Reckless Misinformation from Barry Klinger and the RICO 20
Klinger has now started a climbdown, screencap of http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/ricoDebate.html below:
Popcorn futures are climbing, and this episode, along with all the many many “follow the money” tentacles it has, may very well become the takedown of organized climate science. The RICO20 has opened a Pandora’s box upon themselves.
As Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. Tweeted:
People that live in Greenhouses shouldn’t cast stones.
Note: shortly after publication this article was edited to include a missing comma, a misplaced “to” instead of “the”, and to fix a text formatting problem
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So if the URL on the IGES site was the wrong one, what was the right one? Enquiring minds need to know. Shouldn’t there be an new press release with the correction? And a new posting of the letter in its correct place?
Sung to the tune of “The Way We Were”
With no particular apologies to Barbara Streisand
Mem’ries,
Light the dollars signs in my mind
Misty dollar-colored memories
Of the scoundrels that we were
Scattered URLs,
Of the evidence we left behind
Schemes we gave to one another
For the greed heads that we were
Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has exposure re-written every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we? Wouldn’t we?
Mem’ries, of shattered schemes, and yet
What’s too painful to remember
Was the research monopoly,
We’re not gonna’ get
So it’s the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember…
The scoundrels that we were…
The scoundrels that we were…
Tom J — very apt, very true — Eugene WR Gallun
+ lots (we should write together!)
LOL…They can’t figure out which website the letter should be posted on BUT we should trust them to tell us what the climate will be in 85 years ????? Not Fu@king likely !!!!
Do we have a prosecutor with the cojones to file RICO charges against this family?
2017
DOING GOOD BY DOING GOOD — DOING WELL BY DOING GOOD — etc. There are a few more variations in phrasing describing what has become one of the favorite mantras of the left — but they all posit the same idea.
Essentially the idea is that personal financial benefit can be legitimately derived from the act of “doing good” for others.
To put it bluntly — this is noble cause corruption taken to the max. Very quickly the flow of money into your own pocket becomes the deciding factor of what “doing good” for others is all about.
It is the mantra of “snake oil salesmen”.
The left sells “snake oil” claiming that it is good for the public while pocketing big bucks.
“Global Warming” is nothing but snake oil being sold by frauds who are pocketing big bucks. (But, of course, most of the policies of the left are really all just “snake oil”.)
Shukla is just a fool who didn’t have the brains to quietly pocket the money (like most do) and keep a low profile. He just had to open his mouth and shout.
Eugene WR Gallun
I should have mentioned that Shukla is just a “little fish” — but, my god, look at the amount of money such a little fish is pocketing!
Eugene WR Gallun
The biggest fish is Obama himself !!!!
Except he was the Senator who sponsored the bill to be able to fire Investigator Generals. Check mate
What , exactly , is your point ?????
You replied to the main article so I assume you are asking the question about it.
Jagadish Shukla has apparently violated a workplace policy that could get him fired. He may have violated the conditions of some of his grants. He may have strayed into criminality.
He is involved in a high profile ‘thing’ that is guaranteed to bring attention to himself. These days, everything one has ever done or said is available on the internet. Those who do not have his best interests at heart will find out about his shenanigans and publish them.
This guy is really really stupid. Maybe he wasn’t quite as stupid as General Petraeus who, as Director of the CIA, should as known better; but he was really stupid nevertheless.
What’s the point? The moral is that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The gods always punish hubris. Think of this as a morality play. It’s a good time to invest in popcorn futures.
Something messed up. I was replying to:
At the time I replied, it looked like Marcus was replying to Anthony’s story. I don’t know if it was WordPress or my browser or my grey matter. Sorry for the confusion.
[Shukla is just a fool who didn’t have the brains to quietly pocket the money (like most do) and keep a low profile. He just had to open his mouth and shout.]
My thought exactly–what hubris of these people to think there would be no “blow back” for their actions
Well, well, well. Backtracking already. But these guys gave me an idea that RICO really should be evoked for their handiwork which is falsifying scientific information. Satellite record shows that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties but official temperature curves show it as a false warming they call “late twentieth century warming.” Proof is in my book “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change.” The eighties and the nineties were actually a ‘pause’/’hiatus’ no-warming period like the current one that is well known. There are several dozen papers attempting to disprove the current hiatus, with no success so far. It will even be harder for them to do it once they hear that there is another hiatus to explain. I traced the original perpetrators of the cover-up to HadCRUT3 and even put a warning about it into the preface of my book when it came out. Nothing happened. Since then I have determined that co-conspirators with HadCRUT3 were GISS and NCDC. They just kept rerunning that false temperature curve until this day, which is 18 years by now, thinking that I can not prove it. It shows far more warming than actually existed just to fool the public. Well, one of my readers has finally unearthed a NASA document proving that NASA knew about that lack of warming in 1997. The perpetrators should be taken to court under the RICO statute for falsifying scientific information for the purpose of deceiving other scientists and the public. I first suggested this in a comment I posted on Bishop Hill blog. I am including a copy of that comment below. The only change I made in it is to add a journal reference to the paper that the comment was aimed at. There is also other information that you may find useful.
Text of comment follows.
******************************************
This paper by Lenowski et al.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1] is another attempt to prove the non-existence of the present hiatus. For the information of these alleged climate scientists, they now have two hiatuses to deal with, not one. The first one occurred in the eighties and nineties but you can not see it on official temperature records because they have been falsified. While doing research for my book “What Warming?” in 2008 I used satellite data and discovered the existence of this former hiatus. But when I went to cross check with official land-based temperature curves it was nowhere in sight .What was in sight was a fake temperature rise they called “late twentieth century warming.” No warming there, just a complete lack of warming according to satellites. It lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch like the current one.
A further investigation showed that HadCRUT3 was the source of this cover-up. I even put a warning about it into the preface of the book when it came out but nothing happened. They just brazenly displayed that fake warming until this day which is eighteen years by now. I note that a group of climate “scientists” that includes Kevin Trenberth just wrote a letter to the President asking him to use the RICO Act to silence the critics of global warming. The proper use for the RICO Act would be to investigate and punish those individuals responsible for the cover-up of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties.
It does not end there because later I discovered that GISS and NCDC were co-conspirators with HadCRUT3 in the cover-up scheme. All three had their databases treated by the same computer and the computer left its footprints on their publicly available temperature curves in exactly identical locations. These comprise sharp upward spikes near the ends of years. Two of them sit in plain sight right on top of the super El Nino of 1998, easy to spot by comparison with satellite data. They have been part of these global temperature data-sets since 1997 when the hiatus ended. If you want accurate data, use satellites, not the compromised data they want us to believe in.
As to the current hiatus, its very existence sets the value of climate sensitivity to zero. At this time, carbon dioxide is increasing but greenhouse warming is not. The greenhouse theory used by IPCC is the Arrhenius theory and Arrhenius requires that addition of carbon dioxide to air must cause warming. Having made a wrong prediction the Arrhenius theory has become invalid and belongs in the waste basket of history. The correct greenhouse theory to use is MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It came out in 2007 and was promptly blacklisted by the global warming clique. They did not like its predictions, particularly that about water vapor. MGT predicts what we see, namely that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the air. According to Miskolczi, carbon dioxide and water vapor form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. The latter is an empirical value obtained from an analysis of radiosonde observations. Miskolczi has demonstrated that this optical thickness remains invariant when atmospheric carbon dioxide is increased. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR as Arrhenius predicts. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor starts to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor has reduced total absorption and no Arrhenius-type warming is possible. Result is that we observe addition of carbon dioxide but there is no parallel absorption, exactly what is happening today. Note also that this completely contradicts theories of water vapor absorption that IPCC favors.
Since now we have two hiatuses in action, not one, they jointly cover the bulk of the satellite era that began in 1979 and in effect render it greenhouse-free.
[Paragraphs added for easier reading. BH]
Sep 20, 2015 at 3:53 AM Arno Arrak
“[Paragraphs added for easier reading. BH]”
Thank goodness!
In agreement with your approach – There never was a consensus conclusion about how water vapour and clouds would respond.
Claims of certainty in this regard are simply dishonest.
It has always been the big unknown and hence the big guess at the heart of all models. Models which have all failed due to exaggeration of predicted post 1990 warming.
Why are the public not being told that a simple change in assumptions re: water vapour and clouds could wipe out almost all of the warming predicted by current models.
“In one of the earliest models of global warming in 1967, Manabe and Weatherald of Princeton’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory made the simplifying assumption that the relative humidity of the atmosphere remains unchanged when the atmosphere warms. This is in effect saying that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor if it is warmer. The presence of this additional greenhouse gas (i.e.
water vapor) would amplify the initial warming and double it. That is, the climate gain factor isf
Nevertheless,the fact that most models tend to have similar water-vapor feedback factors DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY ARE CORRECT”
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/faculty/tung/journals/tung07.pdf
There is an old saying about picking fights, never pick one with an organization that orders ink by the tank car. In the internet era, it might be best to avoid people who do data mining for a living since we all live in glass houses now.
Haven’t seen this much Wagon Circling since a ’60s episode of Wagon Train.
Rawhide. It was the cows they circled.
Here you go….
Inspector General Hotline – NSF
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/hotline.jsp
National Science Foundation
Recent news articles have raised some concern about the security of the online complaint process used to report fraud, waste, and abuse to more than two …
O/T:
Samie Al-Achrafi, in Huffington Post, plagiarized Eric Worrall’s Google search and WUWT posting. LOL!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/26/google-forecasts-no-interest-in-paris-cop21/#comment-2038144
Is it true or false, that public money stopped flowing to IGES in July 2015? There’s no reference to it on their about page. Neither is there anything on its purported dissolution.
Let’s see a 2 column ledger. On the right side of the page there should be a listing of all the accomplishments of these folks as regards climate issues. On the left side of the page there should be a listing of all the recently acquired real property possessions and accoutrements of IGES associates.
Right side label: What you got for your money
Left side label: What we got for your money
WHAT !!!! Your expecting liberals to be…gasp …HONEST ????
There is one person on this planet I would not want to be investigating me. STEVE McIntyre.
You bloody fools at George Mason have gone and done it now. OMG
socialists always have a habit of self destructing !!
Yes, socialism is the seed of its own destruction, but they also destroy the rest of us on the way down. Best not let it grow in the first place.
What’s needed now is an article in the WSJ to bring this front and center.
thing is, even if he were caught at the airport with a suitcase of money, nothing will be done. he is one of them and will probably be sitting, laughing at all of us, safe in the knowledge that no one will ever take this issue further. Oh we can rant and rave but in the end we are powerless the system is on his side and he pays his dues to the system therefore the system will not hurt him.
See NSF conflict of interest policy–section 510
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/manuals/gpm05_131/gpm5.jsp
At http://www.iges.org/map.html there are references to two sites:
I took a look with Google Maps, but it doesn’t show much beyond an area with several glassy office buildings. I’m a bit tempted to call them up and ask when the office will be closing. Is there anyone near Rockville who can check them out?
There’s very little about |”IGES Business Office”| them in Google, dropping the quotes adds a lot of noise, using Institute-Global Environment looks like it would get several more low utility links.
Poor Kevin Trenberth of Climategate fame, he just keeps hitching his wagon to the wrong star.
We are dealing with puppets. With apologies to a real puppeteer can we now refer to Shukla, Mann and Oreske? 😉
Wow, are you old! 🙂
One of my searches got me to a text list of attendees at a meeting of cola.iges.org folks with one guest:
The name may be familiar, he made the mistake of joinf the GWPF and finding that was enough to be ostracized by the warmista.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/
I don’t think there’s a strong connection between Bengtsson and the Shuklas, but thought it worth noting in passing.
Sorry but I just cant take Klinger seriously-
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mash+klinger&rlz=1C1QJDB_enAU612AU612&espv=2&biw=1684&bih=941&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCOviupn7n8gCFeOdpgodbMsLEQ
Not forgetting Klinger’s “…ambivalence about the RICO letter…”
Ambivalent? Is that why he signed the letter and then made silly assumptions along with silly public announcements?
Can someone call the FBI?
there must be an avenue for getting the FBI involved in this open and shut case of fraud and other ethical no nos.
Someone needs to make sure that passports of all members of the Shukla family are removed from their person so that they do not skip the country until a full investigation has been concluded.
“Organized Climate Science” I like that. Shall we add a poetic note and change it to “Organized Clime”?
Like my daddy used to say, “you can’t put sh*t back in the horse.”
It is worse than double-dipping. It looks like government grants for research were sent off to fund a school in India. No doubt a wonderful thing, but this is not permitted for grant money. If it was institute overhead, then they were falsely claiming the overhead from the grants, because overhead is supposed to be actual costs, not a slush fund.