Jagdish Shukla's #RICO20 blunder may have opened the 'largest science scandal in US history'

Yesterday, Shukla and GMU got notice that they have piqued the interest of a congressional committee, and via a written notice are required to preserve documents for an impending Congressional investigation and to provide proof that all employees of IGES/COLA have been notified that they are aware they can’t destroy documents. As we follow the unraveling behind the scenes and new FOIA documentation, rumors of some aberrant behavior in the past have begun to surface from former colleagues that suggest we might be dealing with the same sort of ego induced blindness that led to the downfall of IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri. The combination of information WUWT is being given behind the scenes suggests to me that this episode is going to get far worse for Shukla and GMU before it gets better.

At issue is at least 63.5 million dollars from the National Science Foundation, and where it went, whether it was used for the purpose intended, and who benefited from that money. The problem at hand seems to be that there may have been more than a little “double dipping” going on with that grant money as Steve McIntyre pointed out in Shukla’s Gold:


NSF policies purportedly regulate research compensation for members of university faculties by limiting their compensation in the academic year to their university salary, while permitting them to top up their university salary in summer months, but set their compensation at the monthly rate of their university salary (the “two-ninths rule”, as follows:

 611.1 Salaries and Wages

  1. All Grantees. All remuneration paid currently or accrued by the organization for employees working on the NSF-supported project during the grant period is allowable to the extent that:
    1. total compensation to individual employees is reasonable for the work performed and conforms to the established policy of the organization consistently applied to both government and non-government activities; and
    2. the charges for work performed directly under NSF grants and for other work allocable as indirect costs are determined and documented as provided in the applicable Federal cost principles.
  2. Colleges and Universities. Section J.10 of OMB Circular A-21 establishes criteria for compensation work performed on government projects by faculty members during and outside the academic year.

NSF’s policy is:

  1. Academic Year Salaries. To be based on the individual faculty member’s regular compensation for the continuous period which, under the policy of the institution concerned, constitutes the basis of his/her salary. Except as provided in GPM 616.2, “Intra-University Consulting,” charges to Federal grants, irrespective of the basis of computation, will not exceed the proportionate share of the base salary for that period.
  2. Periods Outside the Academic Year. During the summer months or other periods not included in the period for which the base salary is paid, salary is to be paid at a monthly rate not in excess of the base salary divided by the number of months in the period for which the base salary is paid. NSF policy on funding of summer salaries (known as NSF’s two-ninths rule) remains unchanged: proposal budgets submitted should not request, and NSF-approved budgets will not include, funding for an individual investigator which exceeds two-ninths of the academic year salary. This limit includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants.

Andrew Dessler, who, like most climate academics, has consistently denied that research funding has any impact on alarmism, summarized the above policy as follows:

Texas A&M pays 10 months of my salary to teach. The other two months of my salary are paid out of grants for doing research, but the University sets the amount I receive during those two months equal to the m$158.06onthly rate that the University pays me the other 10 months. Thus, the vast majority of my salary is completely disconnected with research.

There are many other obligations on recipients of federal research grants, many of which are summarized in the NSF Grants Manual.

George Mason University Policy

Shukla has been on the faculty of George Mason University since 1993 (1984-1992 University of Maryland) and, during that time, has obtained federal grants both in the name of George Mason University and the Institute for Global Environment and Security Inc. discussed below).

George Mason, like  most universities, has a policy on conflict of interest,  including a detailed policy on conflict of interest in federally funded research.   Under such policies, “non-profits” are classified as “business”, a protocol that seems very apt when large salaries are withdrawn by insiders from a closely-held “non-profit”:

“Business” means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, trust or foundation, or any other individual or entity carrying on a business or profession, whether or not for profit.

The University conflict of interest policies require comprehensive and formal disclosure of personal and family financial interests to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

This policy applies to any person who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of any research funded by a Federal agency.  The responsible parties listed in this policy act as institutional officials for purposes of policy implementation, enforcement, and reporting.

Financial Conflict of interest” (FCOI) means a significant financial interest (SFI) directly and significantly affecting the design, conduct, or reporting of the federally funded research.

“Significant financial interest” means a financial interest consisting of one or more of the following interests of the investigator (and/or those of the investigator’s spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appears to be related to the investigator’s institutional responsibilities:

Investigators who apply for any federally funded research must disclose certain financial interests related to that research.  Specifically, each investigator must provide a list of his or her known SFIs (and those of his or her spouse and/or dependent children) related to the investigator’s institutional responsibilities.

As a part of the university’s application for federal funds, each investigator must certify (1) that he or she has no such interests or (2) that he or she has such interests and has disclosed them through the institution’s disclosure process.  The Office of Sponsored Programs maintains custody of the investigator’s certification.


So, as you can see, there are strict rules on how that money can be used. McIntyre adds commentary that suggests in addition to nepotism, there’s a quantity friends and family all feeding from these NSF grants:

Shukla Compensation

Despite the various changes in grant structure, one constant (or rather steadily increasing amount) has been the several sources of compensation to Shukla and his wife.

In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496  in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700).  Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.

Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014.  (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013.  Combined with Shukla’s university salary,  the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014.  In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.

Discussion

There is a surprising link between the George Mason department and one of my earliest adversaries at NSF, David Verardo, Mann’s handler at NSF, who told him in 2003 that he didn’t have to provide data to me – that Mann was entitled to his view of climate and I was entitled to mine. Verardo’s wife, Stacey Verardo, is a colleague of Shukla, Kinter, Klinger and the others in the AOES department at George Mason, while Verardo himself is a member of the Adjunct Faculty at George Mason.

The most important point about all this?

There’s apparently an $800,000 annual salary and an organization full of Shukla family members that has produced next to no results for the millions received. Even NSF on their own web page acknowledges that only one paper has been produced out of a 4.2 million dollar grant.

Just think of what climate skeptics could do with money like that if we actually got it rather than the purported proverbial “big oil check” we are so often accused of getting?

In addition to the Federal law related to NSF grants, the other real teeth of the matter here is the law governing state employees: state employees may not be compensated by another employer for work that falls under their state employee remit. In this case that would include scientific research by a Professor (a state employee) i.e. Shukla himself.

It seems this went overlooked by GMU for awhile, but there are indications that somebody might have seen the looming problem that threatened to derail the gravy train, and made some changes.

From what can be ascertained at this point, prior to 2013, all the NSF grants flowed through Shukla’s IGES organization to the subsidiary organization COLA. Now, the NSF grants apparently bypass IGES and go directly to GMU and COLA.

WUWT commenter “lokenbr” noted yesterday:

It’s almost as if someone recognized the inappropriate nature of the previous arrangement and shut it down.

Though given the Schedule A filed in May 2015 along with a statement of financial interests by COLA director James Kinter it seems like they are still one and the same entity:

kinter-schedule-a-2015

Source: Kinter, James – SOEI – 2015 (PDF)

Former Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels quipped on WUWT yesterday: (bold mine)

It would appear that there’s about $31.5 million in overhead (1/2 of 63 million) that should have gone to GMU, but the grants were run through the consulting company, in clear violation of the rules for state employees. This is money that the taxpayers of Virginia had to pony up instead.

IGES’ Form 990 shows Shukla worked 28 hours per week for it. That can only happen if the Dean approves an overage beyond the eight hours allowed.

GMU’s faculty Dean had to know about the magnitude of the money flowing through IGES and into the Shukla family.

GMU’s Provost had to know this, because no Dean would permit that all that overhead to not go to the university on his or her own.

Perhaps the President knew.

NSF had to know this.

NOAA had to know this.

NASA had to know this.

Apparently each one of these entities felt they were above the law. You may be looking at the largest science scandal in US history.

Note: initial publication of this post was missing an image and quote from Pat Michaels due to operator error of the Publish/Save button. The missing elements were added within a couple of minutes. Some spelling and formatting corrections and a link to Kinter’s SOEI have also been added.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
312 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 5:51 am

What is the likelihood that Shukla will ever have to pay this money back?

BallBounces
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 6:03 am

Zip.

Catcracking
Reply to  BallBounces
October 2, 2015 8:47 am

Correct, we have a government that does not care about corruption from certain quarters.

RockyRoad
Reply to  BallBounces
October 3, 2015 6:07 am

We have a government that typically awards corruption and has a CAGW-oriented agenda. However, the electorate is now aware of it, much to the dismay of the government. Time for a big, big reset.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 6:09 am

In a plea bargain arrangement it’s very high, just the fact that there’s a potential fraud case here, with penalties that include 20 years of incarceration, tends to drive the defendant to a plea bargain. Also a good chance GMU needs to can him, to protect their backside.
I worked in the defense industry for 6 years, and I can tell you that the Fed Bean Counters are some of the most tenacious creatures on earth.

Bill
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 2, 2015 6:56 am

Are you kidding? NOTHING will come of this. Some will go through a Kabuki theater of concern and outrage, and it will dwindle down to nothing. Absolutely guaranteed. If for no other reason than the people involved are “too big to fail”. But another big reason is that they are on the “right side of history”.

RayG
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 2, 2015 9:07 am

In the past I worked in aerospace and also managed a large lab at a major research university. During my aerospace days the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) tended to conform to your description. The NSF audit function was a joke. The university had a significant amount of DoD research funding, enough to have resident DCAA representative. There was also an Office of Naval Research resident representative. They were all congenial folks but would never make it beyond AA level to use a baseball metaphor. We can only hope that the good Congressman will send in the Government Accountability Office. (Hint hint!)

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 2, 2015 10:28 am

Let’s see, entering the final year of a presidential election race. The Democrats are already looking down for the count even against a field of anemic insubstantial Republicans.
A) The Democrats can throw the Shukla’s under the bus and claim the moral high ground.
B) The Congressional Republicans are no fools and as Texas Rep. Lamar Smith (R) has already demonstrated, neither lazy nor slow.
C) The Democrats can turn a blind eye, using their illegal partisan agency approach to stifle prosecution at least temporarily.
D) Don’t worry about the Republicans, there is liberal blood in the water and both houses of Congress will be looking for their share.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has taken the National Science Foundation (NSF) to task before for sloppy accounting and results tracking. It isn’t likely that the OMB will allow this caper to slip by without making some glorious public examples.
Then there is the Office of Inspector General (OIG) which by itself sounds simple, but is anything but. Depending on the specifics of who, where and what, there can be quite a number of very interested glory hunting Inspector Generals.
e.g. Just at the Federal level;
Department of Education
The Honorable Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General,
Government Accountability Office
Adam Trzeciak, Inspector General,
National Science Foundation
Allison Lerner, Inspector General,
are just the opening interest players. Any IG who thinks their territory might have some Shukla or GMU trespass footprints will show interest and demand paperwork.

Ian
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 2, 2015 3:06 pm

How tenacious are the Fed Bean Counters when the beans they’re counting are their own?
This affair will change the AGW machine only if a spotlight is shined on it by politicians and the MSM.

curly
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 2, 2015 6:35 pm

I’m with Bill on Kabuki theater.
Aren’t US Congressional committees where important bills go to die? Or at least get buried.
Even if the IRS or other US Federal auditors get involved, we’ve seen recently how high-placed IRS bureaucrat idealogues can persecute other ideologies and get a pass from their “overseers” in Congress.
We can only hope. But fraud in the sub-$1M range is probably noise to US Federal “regulators”.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 3, 2015 5:31 am

When they’re looking OUTSIDE.
Inside the gov?…not so much.

JamesD
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 4, 2015 1:34 am

FREE JON CORSINE!!! In order for there to be a plea bargain, there must be a prosecution from the Obama regime. Won’t happen.

Bill
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 6:52 am

Nada

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 8:16 am

My experience with a NASA investigation in a similar case is that he will most likely have to pay back those amounts deemed to have been fraudulently used. Also I would expect the university to take action if any of their rules have been circumvented (which seems likely), although I’m not very confident that GMU will do so.

Bruce
Reply to  Phil.
October 2, 2015 6:22 pm

No, it will be swept under the rug to protect their reputations.

TYoke
Reply to  Phil.
October 3, 2015 8:22 pm

Noble Cause Corruption makes this case very different from a NASA or Defense Department investigation. In those cases the MSM would be all over the story looking for whistleblowers, and wagging their fingers at the evil-doers. They would and have lit a fire under the appropriate prosecutors.
Can anyone see that happening when government grantee is a global warming alarmist? Ain’t gonna happen. Outside of a very few right-leaning news outlets, the major players in the MSM will entirely ignore this story. It goes against the whole nature of the narrative they pitch every single day.

MattS
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 2, 2015 8:24 am

1000i
* for those who don’t know i is the imaginary number, it’s value is the square root of negative one.

George E. Smith
Reply to  MattS
October 2, 2015 12:53 pm

> i thought that was j ?? or izzat a 90 degree left turn ??
g

George E. Smith
Reply to  MattS
October 2, 2015 12:57 pm

in any case, the exact value of pi is : – Ln(-1) .sqrt(-1)
g

Menicholas
Reply to  MattS
October 2, 2015 2:42 pm

Mmmmm…pi!

Skidance
Reply to  Menicholas
October 2, 2015 6:58 pm

It’s = it is or it has; its is the possessive. It seems that this distinction has been lost, somehow.

October 2, 2015 5:52 am

There should be no doubt any a rational mind that the whole AGW “Climate Change” Alarmism is being driven by the Largest Scientific Scandal in Modern History.

Reply to  SZ939
October 2, 2015 6:22 am

Virginia is also one of the states piloting a reenvisioning of higher ed tied to the reenvisioning of K-12 called Common Core is many states originally. (Virginia did not need because it adopted the Common Core of Learning back in the 90s). In other NSF grants I have researched tied to the constructivist Math and Science Partnerships that are controversial, the PIs would brag to officials from other states on how to get administrators throughout the university systems to comply with pushing the desired vision. In the 2009 minutes I have from a DC NSF meeting, a Georgia PI brags about the system telling adminiistraors at all the unviersities and colleges that their promotions, raises, and contract renewals will be tied to the ability to bring in research grants. The NSF grants tied to education and Climate Science are viewed as the easiest to get because you do not need to have the expense of a lab. The grants are primarily for advocacy.

rgbatduke
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 10:15 am

Of course. There is obviously an enormous gravy train here, completely outside of people who really do climate science (who are probably, for the most part, honest about their work and working within the rules). Otherwise we wouldn’t see the endless parade of papers on how global warming (predicted by models, not observed) will affect butterfly populations on particular hillsides in California (without any actual observational work being done on the actual butterfly population or whether or not it is being affected by climate change or the fact that all the trees on the hillside are being cut down to build houses).
In the end, even the 2/9ths rule fails to display the dependency. Yes, you can only get 2/9ths of your salary (summer salary, basically) from a typical academic grant, although there are exceptions. However, the University almost always makes far more than your salary from the 54% indirect costs charged to the grant. For example, if you have a salary of (say) $100,000 (including benefits) and have a grant for $250,000, the University gets over $130,000 for indirect costs, you pay yourself 2/9’s or $22,000 out of the $120,000 remaining, and you have enough left over for a student or two, a postdoc partially supported by teaching, and some equipment. The University pays you the remaining $78,000 “for teaching” and maybe pays your postdoc to teach a course and reduce the burden to your grant, but even allowing for actual overhead — lab space that already exists in buildings long since paid for, electricity, bookkeeping, computer/network services outside of line items in the grant — you can see that they are likely to break even to win a bit. From what I understand it is break even or lose a bit, but even so it is usually a myth that the faculty person is really supported “by teaching”. It’s complex — money flows from here and there out of the tuition stream, any endowments the University might have, and indirect cost money on grants, and is rearranged to “keep the University alive” because in the end, a big-science physics or chemistry lab with a $2 million budget ($1 million of which is indirect cost money for the Unversity might end up de facto subsidizing the Philosophy department, whose faculty really is supported by teaching/tuition as getting anything but tiny grants is difficult indeed.
This system “works”, for the most part — I don’t want to criticize it too harshly because it does work in the public interest to keep higher education alive and (incidentally) the US as one of the premier industrial powers on the planet as we produce a steady flow of well-educated humans and new ideas and technologies. But, like all open systems of this sort, it generates self-organized structures that exploit the cash flow and use it to grow. There are all sorts of rules intended to prevent this, and to ensure that research paid for by grants is done honestly and well, but the system has many incentives for abuse as well as disincentives. Duke is downright fascist in policing their grants, as they have to be — if you get blacklisted by the NSF or NIH it is sayonara for any research university. I don’t even have grant support any more but I fill in a conflict of interest form every year with explicit questions that would detect nepotism, vested interest in companies that do business with Duke, and so on. Duke is enormously intolerant of this — they are still smarting (and probably still under scrutiny) from an incident involving a medical researcher faking data a few years back.
I have no idea what George Mason was thinking, if indeed they were turning a blind eye to nepotism and featherbedding galore with federal grant money, but the consequence of this if proven could be devastating to the University. They could have their ability to administer federal grants at all revoked, indefinitely. If this happens, it could literally destroy the school. Unfortunately, they are way, way over a threshold of sanity here. If $63 million in grants is involved and congress is looking, there will be no protection from the righteous wrath that will descend on them. That’s not chump change (although it is over a fairly long time).
On the other hand, both George Mason and Shuklas deserve due process. Which I’m sure that they will get. In the meantime, I’d suggest not rushing to judgment no matter how attractive the prospect of the perfect karmic balance that would result from a letter suggesting RICO be applied to skeptical funding that had the direct outcome of RICO being applied to the funding of the letter writer.
I’ll say one thing. I’ll bet that the outside (of GM and IGES) signers of this letter are deeply, deeply regretting the fact that they let themselves be talked into it. Because in the fullness of time the grant investigation will — quietly — descend to their own funding as well. If they’ve received money or support through IGES there will likely be harsh words and scrutiny from the grant officers involved.
rgb

Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 12:01 pm

rgb,
Thanks for your insights into this facet of higher ed.
Concerning your comment about the RICO20 signers:
Once I’ve read some of Prof. Shukla’s tin-eared, self-aggrandizing materials and saw the signs of nepotism, I started thinking he cannot possibly be very popular in the climate science community. The stuff on his IGES web pages simply looks bad even before anyone starts digging into the details.
I have no doubt the signers now regret joining Shukla’s RICO appeal but why in the world did they go along in the first place? I’m glad they did because it gives the taxpaying public a chance to get some sunlight into the whole complex, but what were they thinking?
To be clear, I’m not asking you to speculate but to me this is the most mysterious part of the ugly affair right now. It looks so stupid it defies explanation even when one considers the self-righteous politicization, hype and habitual overreach in today’s climatology.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 12:40 pm

I can see how these 20 came to believe signing the “Rico Letter” addressed to the President. They have had support for their fraud from some of the biggest institutions and people in Government and thought that nothing would happen to them. Their heads were bigger than their common sense. They’ve gotten away with all this for so long it became normal to them and, in their minds, acceptable and accepted.
For the lesser involved of the 20, they just got sucked into the hype, but probably also have some fingers in the honey pot. Regret now.
Now, for those people at NSF, NASA, NOAA who were aware of what was going on, when will the investigation get to them. That is an even more serious problem IMHO.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 12:43 pm

Correction:
I can see how these 20 came to believe signing the “Rico Letter” addressed to the President was okay and wouldn’t become a problem for them.

George E. Smith
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 1:27 pm

“””””….. — I don’t want to criticize it too harshly because it does work in the public interest to keep higher education alive and (incidentally) the US as one of the premier industrial powers on the planet as we produce a steady flow of well-educated humans and new ideas and technologies. …..”””””
I thought we imported (immigrated) all of those knowledgeable people from the third world, on H1B visas ??
According to a study done by AIP or some similar Physics organization, of all of the PhD physics graduates “produced” by USA universities, only 30% ever get a full time job applying their well education, and new ideas and technologies.
5% get a part time job doing that but then have to change fields to keep working.
65% of them never ever get a full time paying job doing their very well educated thing.
It seems that the thing that they are good at, and did the pioneering work on in their PhD thesis, is of no earthly interest to anybody else but them. They are the world’s leading authority on something that absolutely nobody else has any interest in; to the point that they would pay money for somebody to do that for them.
They typically end up as post doc fellows at some think tank or institution swilling at the public trough or bleeding some well endowed foundation.
So if you want to be the leader in your field; beware, you might be the only one in your field.
But note: 30% did have the good sense to do their thesis on something practical that somebody else would pay money for them to do.
I thought of getting a PhD in ice cream making; but it seemed to be an already well occupied field. I decided it was more fun, and useful to be an Engineering Physicist, or maybe that’s a Physicist Engineer.
g >> G

Menicholas
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 2:45 pm

I would love to be an engineer.
Out there on the open prairie, no one to bother you…all that open sky and those two gleaming tracks stretching off into the distance…

Sam The First
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 4:16 pm

This is corruption of academia on a massive scale.
Orwell’s 1984: your future is dependent on your collaboration

curly
Reply to  Robin
October 2, 2015 7:14 pm

Anyone else notice a pattern with the current US administration and cronyism/favoritism, to the point of the FBI investigating and raiding the offices of US Fed government’s “CTO” friends’ businesses and offices?
Does the US Fed government really need a politicized office of the “CTO”?
I’m w/George E. Smith’s comments above, on US government-preferred immigrant classes and political pandering. To add specific names and organizations:
Search for yourselves:
Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer (CTO)
Vivek Kundra
Sushal Bansal
FBI
Optimal Solutions and Technologies
GRPA

Reply to  Robin
October 3, 2015 2:16 pm

And I’ll bet foregivenous only applies to Universities that have signed onto the “sustainability” agenda.

Edmonton Al
October 2, 2015 5:53 am

It is about time somebody stepped up to the plate to bring these criminals down.
Throw the RICO act at them [RICO20]

Reply to  Edmonton Al
October 2, 2015 11:41 am

RICO requires racketeering.
RICO is intended to combat ‘organized crime’, not nepotism or even bad book-keeping. However, regularly collude with an organized (loosely defined) group to commit injury (also loosely defined) in support or defense of the organization; especially in regards to pecuniary interests and one comes close to RICO boundaries. Something that other ‘climate team members should pay attention to.
Rico was not nor is not intended to be used against anything but organized crime.
A RICO prosecution and conviction requires:
1. That a person”
2. through a pattern”
3. of racketeering activity (organizational)
collection of unlawful debt (funds)
4. directly or indirectly-
(a) invests in, or
(b) maintains an interest in, or
(c) participates in
5. an enterprise
6. the activities of which affect/cross interstate commerce.
All elements of a RICO offense, including the
two or more state or federal offenses which constitute
“racketeering activity,” must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.”
Shukla and GMU are not RICO candidates; though their ‘RICO letter’ does come under collusion, but there must be a history of similar activity. One whinging finger pointing letter is not RICO.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 2, 2015 12:28 pm

The original RICO statue “was” instituted to deal with organized crime, aka Mafia style racketeering, but the law has been broadened on a Federal level and each state also has it’s own RICO laws that can be applied on a state level.
But, no one here, that I can see, has suggested that the “whinging finger pointing letter” that these 20 people signed constitutes a RICO offense. That would be stupid. What constitutes a RICO offense is the “pattern” of their behavior over decades of work in their “scientific” fields, of funneling Federal and State grant money through their own personal “organizations” so that they can “participate in activities that affect, cross interstate commerce”. Such as using NSF grant money for scientific research to fund a school in another country, or to pay friends and family members to run your “foundation”, instead of doing actual scientific research with that money. Every grant they misapplied constitutes “one act/one Federal or State offense” and there are more than enough to establish the “pattern” required by RICO.

Tucci78
Reply to  Aphan
October 2, 2015 1:20 pm

What constitutes a RICO offense is the “pattern” of their behavior over decades of work in their “scientific” fields, of funneling Federal and State grant money through their own personal “organizations” so that they can “participate in activities that affect, cross interstate commerce”. Such as using NSF grant money for scientific research to fund a school in another country, or to pay friends and family members to run your “foundation”, instead of doing actual scientific research with that money. Every grant they misapplied constitutes “one act/one Federal or State offense” and there are more than enough to establish the “pattern” required by RICO.

Precisely. Mr. “industrial-strength stupid” Eschenbach fails to perceive that “the climate consensus” of alleged “scientists” has been (and continues to be) colluding in theft of value by deceit.
Peculation in Kreis Shukla (masculum et feminam creavit eos) particularly, but more generally in the knowing statement of falsehoods in the climastrologists’ applications for grants to fund their Cargo Cult “research.”
Hasn’t anyone reading here ever been advised about the harrowing liabilities to which a scientific investigator subjects himself simply by signing a grant application containing assertions which he knows to be false?
Bear in mind that the members of this “#RICO20” cadre – like most of the self-anointed “climate consensus” clowns – are not only men of the authoritarian left but are beyond doubt classifiable as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), demonstrating the pathognomonic traits of all such gibbering “political correctness” puckers.

In the universities, in the churches, in the corporations, in the professional organizations, in the editorial offices, in the game studios, and just about everywhere else you can imagine, free speech and free thought are under siege by a group of fanatics as self-righteous as Savanarola, as ruthless as Stalin, as ambitious as Napoleon, and as crazy as Caligula.
They are the Social Justice Warriors, the SJWs, the self-appointed thought police who have been running amok throughout the West since the dawn of the politically correct era in the 1990s. Their defining characteristics:
• a philosophy of activism for activism’s sake
• a dedication to rooting out behavior they deem problematic, offensive, or unacceptable in others
• a custom of primarily identifying individuals by their sex, race, and sexual orientation
• a hierarchy of intrinsic morality based on the identity politics of sex, race, and sexual orientation
• a quasi-religious belief in equality, diversity, and the inevitability of progress
• an assumption of bad faith on the part of all non-social justice warriors
• an opinion that motivation matters more than consequences
• a certainty that they are the only true and valid defenders of the oppressed
• a habit of demanding that their opinions be enshrined as social custom and law
• a tendency to possess a left-wing political identity
• a willingness to deny science, history, logic, their past words, or any other aspect of reality that contradicts their current Narrative.

— Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (2015)

It’s also worth drawing upon Vox Day’s same work for element #7 of the proper formula by which to address the climate catastrophists who are exercising the Alinsky playbook to which all Social Justice Warriors hew:

“Make the rubble bounce.”

empiresentry
Reply to  ATheoK
October 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Forcing the public and private enterprise,
1. through a pattern of force or harassment (racketeering), with the additional gun of government,
2. based on fraudulent lies
3. to follow practices which enriches themselves.
Shukla is guilty.
His money did not come from freely donated money, people who chose to and agreed with him.
His funds came from taxpayer funds to enforce a pattern of lies to enrich himself and his family.
.
I have put in for several NSF grants – very small amounts.
One was capture of contaminants in drinking water systems ($6,000).
Another was carbon capture of flu gasses in power plants. ($12,000)
Another was near-net carbon-carbon material play dough that becomes harder than diamond. ($22,000)
Another was final prototype test of slurry to capture of contaminants in fracking fluids for recycling. ($15,000)
.
I actually would have produced something that had a purpose and reedy to be commercialized for a very small fraction of the money he received.
.
Imagine how many other ideas and projects out there got thrown out into a dumpster because this grandiose toad needed to buy a new home.

REG
Reply to  ATheoK
October 2, 2015 7:08 pm

The way the scam works is as follows:
1. Government agencies ‘grant’ money to a not-for-profit organization.
2. The executives allocate a large portion of the grant to themselves as salary.
3. A portion of the grant or the salary is further allocated to 1 or more not-for-profit organizations.
4. The latter organization donates money to a political entity supporting the campaigns of 1 or more politicians who voted to fund the grant money.
It’s an elaborate kickback scheme, or circle of corruption.
In many cases, they don’t even disguise the kickback. In the case of Universities, many are the largest contributors to political campaigns themselves.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 3, 2015 6:30 am

While that may have been true at one time, the use of RICO has strayed far away from organized crime.
“Today, federal prosecutors use RICO routinely to win easy convictions and prison terms for individuals who in the course of business run afoul of federal regulations. For every John Gotti who is brought down by RICO, many obscure business owners and managers are also successfully prosecuted under this law.”
More here:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

sciguy54
October 2, 2015 5:56 am

Everyone is due their chance for rebuttal. But this appears to be a very ugly tip to a very large iceberg of hubris, self denial, and corruption. Thank you Anthony and contributors for turning over a rock and allowing some sun to shine on this festering sore.
Perhaps if we lance this boil we can begin to heal the broken aspects of the scientific community before the rot reaches a point of no return.

sciguy54
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 6:05 am

Yes, they deserve a huge thank you also.
WUWT has carried the word to the next level. We shall see if the next level of media are open-minded enough to give this some exposure, or if they will continue their tradition of motivated activism and selective reportage.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 6:06 am

Hear hear!
I’m still waiting on the BBC picking up the story…

van Loon
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 7:37 am

Thank you, gentlemen. What about the 19 others who signed the document. Are they being committed to an insane asylum?

Editor
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 7:46 am

van Loon, they might not be heading for an asylum, but I suspect many are also being considered for detailed audits. If there’s one bad apple, there’s probably others.
Cheers

rgbatduke
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 10:30 am

van Loon, they might not be heading for an asylum, but I suspect many are also being considered for detailed audits. If there’s one bad apple, there’s probably others.

I agree. I’m sure they are all very, very sorry they signed. I don’t quite know what people like Trenberth were thinking. Overall, I tend to respect him as being basically honest and comparatively objective. But yes, I’m guessing they will all get audited in time, especially if they received any money or support through IGES itself. Most of them are probably pretty safe, if they are at a University that takes its grant administration rules seriously, as most do AFAIK. There could be some question if they got money for “consulting”, though. That’s something that is legal under most University policies and as long as there is no vested interest or conflict of interest, not a problem for grants. For example, I’ve done and continue to do a bunch of consulting work or entrepreneurial work over the years for companies doing stuff completely irrelevant to my research interests and as long as I limit the time I spend on it to stay within certain permitted levels and clear any IP that Duke might have an interest in Duke, and the granting agencies, do not care. But if it is used to redistribute grant money through a loophole outside of the rules regulating grant support… that might be a problem. If favors (like signing a sketchy document) were exchanged (even if there was no clear quid pro quo) there could be a problem. Or not. It gets pretty complex somewhere in there…

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 11:44 am

Absolutely! Than you Roger Pielke Jr and Steve McIntyre!
What would make for a great follow up is an analysis of value for money. What did the NSF get for their $63 million?

Menicholas
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 12:20 pm

” I don’t quite know what people like Trenberth were thinking.”
I do not pretend to know what they were thinking, but the letter itself gives us all a very big clue.
Just taking the letter for what it requests, what they were thinking that they could use their influence as bigshots to call down the unfathomably might and wrath of the justice department to steamroll people, who had the temerity to disagree with them, into oblivion.
Put another way, they wanted to have terrible things happen to people they dislike. Things like jail, or huge fines, or perhaps merely career ending criminal investigations. Bad things. While they sat back and patted themselves on the back for being so clever to think of such a grand way to punish other scientists, academics, and anyone else who was on the opposing side of a loaded political propaganda issue.
Very simply…they wanted to harshly punish people for getting in the way of their plans and schemes.
Or maybe not…maybe it was all just an innocent attempt to punish people for the criminal act of being skeptical.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 12:52 pm

Yes, Big kudos to Roger Pielke Jr, and Steve McIntyre. Excellent work guys. Thank you.
Another point…This is big enough that you guys may want to ask the distinguished Arctic researcher, Prof. Wadhams how to stay out of trouble with all this going on. Get some pointers from him… ; )
1/2 sarc

John Whitman
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 2, 2015 3:51 pm

. . . yes, Roger Pielke Jr, and Steve McIntyre were the initiators of disciplined and carefully considered revelations . . .
John

Reply to  sciguy54
October 3, 2015 2:37 pm

A first step would be to not allow universities to contribute in any way to political campaigns. They subsist primarily on public money.

James in Perth
October 2, 2015 5:58 am

It could be a pun. Maybe Shukla wasn’t getting any cost of living adjustments from the University?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  James in Perth
October 2, 2015 6:14 am

or royalties from a sex novel.

Doug S
October 2, 2015 6:00 am

What a wonderful gift this is to tax paying citizens. Finally we get a glimpse into the deep, dark hole that criminal embezzlers pour our hard earned money into. Let’s hope the truth will be completely exposed here and appropriate measures taken to reimburse the public treasury. Thank you Anthony, Steve and all the others for bringing this issue to light.

Eliza
October 2, 2015 6:00 am

Thank you Mr Watts, Tony Heller, Paul Homewood, Mcyntire ect., for pursuing this to the end! LOL

Resourceguy
October 2, 2015 6:01 am

The VW software did it.

CodeTech
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 2, 2015 6:10 am

That can’t be. they’re spewing filth whether they’re on the test stand or not.

Martin S
October 2, 2015 6:07 am

Hope there’s lots of competent computer forensics and forensic accountants available.
I imagine there will be alot of “dog ate my private mail server” and sgt. Schultz “i know naaaating” coming out of this

Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 6:17 am

You guys realize, I hope, that the response from the believers will be something along the lines of “This doesn’t change the science.” Although I always like to see shysters go down, and this is big, I’m not sure this is a true science scandal if it only affects the funding, rather than providing proof of biased outcomes.

Edmonton Al
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 6:50 am

Hopefully if one stops the funding then there will be less pseudo-scientific papers.

benofhouston
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 7:02 am

True. It’s not going to affect anything on our debate, though it does undermine the “poor underfunded environmentalists versus the rich evil oil companies” meme, which people still trot out despite the laughable falsehood.
However, if it gets more scrutiny of funding, then that’s good for all of us as taxpayers, and it’s good for getting rid of corruption.

Doug Bunge
Reply to  benofhouston
October 2, 2015 7:48 am

Ah, good points, I only briefly thought about that aspect and then just as quickly forgot about it.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 7:44 am

True. However, the Shukla case will hopefully show to the public corrupt nature of the agencies that fund science and tchnology. And this is grat and eeded development…

Leo Smith
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 8:45 am

Well there are two thoughts that occur.
First of all, if there is one ‘Black hat’ in the climate community, how many more are there ?
Secondly, if inquiries show that a lot of public money isn’t actually going on the science, how much public funding will they keep dishing out to science that is – ahem – ‘settled’?
Personally, the whole thing hasn’t been about the science for over 10 years. Its been about political and economic expediency. Pork barrel politics to the Greens and the renewables boys.
If the grift associated with teh political part of climate change can be exposed, that’s the end of the politics of climate change, and it can go back to being an arcane corner of science,
In the UK, the Daily Telegraph Earth section, that used to be 90% stories about climate change, this week only has one.
And we are in the run up to Paris FFS!
Climate change simply isn’t interesting any more.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 2, 2015 11:57 am

While it isn’t a ‘black hat’ so to speak, GMU is a Virginia State college.
Yes, every other Virginia State college is on the hot seat along with GMU. It is prudent for any investigator to look over the paperwork for similar colleges.
a) especially if there is a trail of communications or discussions regarding interesting topics
b) oddly, if there is a distinct absence of expected communications or suspicious blank spots.
One does wonder about UVA and their ‘circle the wagons’ over past emails. A history of Shukla or GMU communications to various UVA staff/members regarding FOIA topics just might prove interesting.

katherine009
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 8:49 am

It does answer the “why would they do this [falsify data]?” objection from the believers.

Doug Bunge
Reply to  katherine009
October 2, 2015 10:28 am

Ah, yes, I can see what you mean.

Bernie
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 8:59 am

No, I’m sadly certain that this will be used as an example of how climate change disbelievers attack the good, hardworking scientists that are fighting so hard to save the world from the 3%.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bernie
October 2, 2015 12:31 pm

I think you are wrong. At least I hope so.
The reason i think that is because everyone is familiar with greed and graft.
They are not theoretical things to most people.
People know that other people getting rich on government pork means less money for other things.
Or at the very least, higher debts and deficits.
And most people do not get fat raises every year, or have two huge income streams, at least one of which appears to be for doing little if anything to actually earn it.
No, I think most people will hate the sound of this.
It will make them literally sick to think of their hard earned tax dollars going to fund a lavish lifestyle for a greedy and corrupt cabal of snobbish fat cats.
Fat cats in the private sector are one thing.
Fat cats on the public dime are quite another.

Sam The First
Reply to  Bernie
October 2, 2015 4:36 pm

Let’s not forget too that the Foundation in question was financed not to produce ‘science’ but to research means of making the propaganda pushing false ‘climate science’ more effective.
In effect, the taxpayer has been paying vast sums to enable the liars to find improved and more effective ways of lying to them! That in itself is a major scandal, never mind the personal nest-feathering.

Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 11:23 am

Who cares what the believers think, say, do. It’s futile to try to convert them at this point. What exposing this stuff WILL do is keep the majority of the public not trusting scientists, keeping their minds open…sceptical! And Cook and Lew and Nutty and others will continue to scratch their heads and dream up even wackier theories for why the public just will not accept their faked consensus.
( Hint for “science communicators”, if people can’t trust the way you behave as a person, or find the things you do and say outside of your office/lab to be offensive/stupid/condescending /illegal/ unethical etc…they ALSO won’t trust anything you do or say as a “scientist” either.)
Every single event like this is another hole in their boat. None of them is going to sink them on its own, but each one helps and they are riding low in the water these days.

Menicholas
Reply to  Aphan
October 2, 2015 12:34 pm

+10

average joe
Reply to  Doug Bunge
October 2, 2015 12:10 pm

Truth be told, there is not a lick of value in ANY of the handful of climate science papers I have viewed. I’m going to extrapolate and say that this applies to virtually all of them. They are virtually all conjecture. There is no way to get valid data to judge validity of hypothesis, without waiting a lifetime (or two or three…). Thus they instead rely on climate models, which themselves are not proven (in fact early indications are that they are crap!). It’s freakin unbelievable! How the morons administering grants don’t see this – oh wait, I forgot, they are in on it. All the way to the top, obummer and his bozo chief science advisor. The good news is, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. This is a deep and incestuous rathole, and the Rightous Right is going to rain a holy shitstorm down on them, leaving no orifice unexplored. Mainstream media will finally figure out they have been had. And that’s when all hell breaks loose on climate science as a whole. Federal funding goes to zero overnight for this malignant field. No more cli sci papers. No more funding for any universities supporting this crap field. The whole lot of them having to get real jobs where they actually produce something of value (burgers anyone?). The only thing anyone will notice is how nice it is to not have to listen to these chicken littles anymore. Oh man, this is better than a wet dream!

Menicholas
Reply to  average joe
October 2, 2015 12:38 pm

A happy day it will be.
From your keyboard to Lamar’s eyeballs.

B
Reply to  average joe
October 2, 2015 2:27 pm

“How the morons administering grants don’t see this – oh wait, I forgot, they are in on it.”
Agree. The sheer intellectual dishonesty of climate change of the magnitude it has become doesn’t likely happen without the ‘ol boys’ in charge at all levels also being intellectually dishonest when doling out the billions they control.

gregole
Reply to  average joe
October 2, 2015 8:55 pm

+1
Hope this snowballs and gets big enough to actually make the media start doing their jobs. Time for the nonsense to end. $63 million? For what? I’d like to know. Go Lamar go!

José Tomás
October 2, 2015 6:18 am

This will come to nothing, unfortunately.
Look at what libs are doing about the Planed Parenthood baby-parts-supermarket and you’ll know what I mean.

José Tomás
Reply to  José Tomás
October 2, 2015 6:20 am

In Brazil, we say that “this is going to end in pizza”.

Menicholas
Reply to  José Tomás
October 2, 2015 12:39 pm

Just spread it around to everyone you can and let the chips fall where they may. We got an election coming up, and people are sick to the point of puking about this noise.

Resourceguy
October 2, 2015 6:20 am

Remember to check for tire tracks on the hard drives.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 2, 2015 7:10 am

Dont the Feds keep copies of emails of citizens? They do according to Edward Snowden, they do!

Tim
Reply to  Man Bearpig
October 2, 2015 8:20 am

They do! I even have a newest best friend that seems to do the scrolling for me on this site. What a time-saver.

John Blake
October 2, 2015 6:24 am

Tip of the iceberg: See for example Duke University Prof. Robert Brown’s comment regarding Paris’ looming COP 21, posted just yesterday in WUWT.
Tens if not hundred of billions disbursed to deviant Warmists over decades have produced only contrived data-sets, invalid statistics, patently fabricated inputs (read, “adjusted”, “smoothed”, etc.– absurdly anti-scientific, biased, one-way only propaganda exercises) constituting fraudulent Grand Theft immune to any honest institutional accounting whatsoever.
Recalling the U.S. Weather Service’s “Blowtorch Winter” forecast issued 10/20/2015, in light of the Old Farmers’ Almanac 2016 projection of “super-cold with heavy snow” throughout New England we await with interest whatever purblind asininities this criminally-deficient agency excretes two weeks from now.

menicholas
Reply to  John Blake
October 2, 2015 7:16 am

Issued 10/20/15?

A C Osborn
October 2, 2015 6:25 am

This will be all over every front page in every major newspaper and on every tv news channel won’t it?
That was a lovely dream I was just having, back to reality now.

Resourceguy
Reply to  A C Osborn
October 2, 2015 6:33 am

The reality is an invite to the WH.

rw
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 4, 2015 1:08 pm

Ah, if only someone in the Obama administration had thought of that earlier. A shot of Obama and Shukla together in front of the WH would have been priceless.

Tim
Reply to  A C Osborn
October 2, 2015 9:01 am

Some have been able to record this mischief for posterity, so don’t give up the dream.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/29/rico20-letter-to-president-obama-disappears/

Bill Illis
October 2, 2015 6:26 am

Another important question is why is so much cash being handed out to the climate change proponents.
The NSF is just throwing money around like it is candy – millions of it at a time that is.

Shawn Marshall
October 2, 2015 6:27 am

Dicktasterships do not have to accede to the con-scent of the misgoverned.

menicholas
Reply to  Shawn Marshall
October 2, 2015 7:18 am

How did that one skip past the censors?

October 2, 2015 6:28 am

IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.
===============
that is certainly generous of the NSF to approve funds marked for scientific research to instead be diverted offshore.

Jimbo
Reply to  ferdberple
October 2, 2015 9:06 am

Is this allowed? His brother appears to be the manager at that college too.

October 2, 2015 6:30 am

I looked up IGES on the US System for Awards Management (SAM) and COLA is IGES. Its a dba (doing business as) not even a registered subsidiary. It’s just a brand. IGES is listed on Maryland corp lookup as a non-stock (non-profit) corporation with Jagadish Shukla as the principle and registered agent.

Editor
Reply to  Ron Graf
October 2, 2015 9:57 am

Please – principal. I don’t think any principles are involved here. 🙂

JBP
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 2, 2015 1:57 pm

ha. Shukla is THE principle. Now state the theorem….

October 2, 2015 6:38 am

don’t not-for-profit organization have rules as to insider salaries and compensation? otherwise what is to prevent the tax free status being abused and simply used as a mechanism to avoid paying taxes?
http://www.iges.org/aboutiges.html
The Institute of Global Environment and Society, Inc. (IGES) – a non-profit, tax exempt research institute, incorporated in the State of Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-profit_laws
If an organization is to qualify for tax exempt status, the organization’s (a) charter — if a not-for-profit corporation — or (b) trust instrument — if a trust — or (c) articles of association — if an association — must specify that no part of its assets shall benefit any of persons who are members, directors, officers or agents (its principals).

Arsten
Reply to  ferdberple
October 2, 2015 8:42 am

As I understand it, salary is exempt from those rules. So as long as IGES didn’t directly pay for their plane trips to Cancun, Copenhagen, or Lima, I doubt that part has been violated.

GTL
Reply to  ferdberple
October 2, 2015 9:31 am

501c3’s routinely have staff and pay them from unrestricted contributions. Else, how could they function? Restricted contributions may not inure to the benefit of trustees, officers, employees, etc. However, I presume the NSF grants have restrictions and the salaries paid at IGES may have been in violation of restrictions.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  GTL
October 2, 2015 4:43 pm

Can you say “David Suzuki”? He took tons of money out of his foundation. He finally resigned due to Canadian Revenue Agency looking at his lobbying efforts which aren’t allowed by a “Charity”.
Seems to be a bit more common than we would like to think. Just look at how much of funds donated to charities are used in “administration” a opposed to disbursed to the “recipients”. United Way is awful. The Salvation Army distributes the highest amount of their receipts compared to other organizations to the poor and needy.

October 2, 2015 6:40 am

I suspect that some people feel that no amount of received money is too much for Saving the Earth (TM)

emsnews
Reply to  Roy Spencer
October 2, 2015 6:58 am

Especially if it goes into their own pockets.

Dahlquist
Reply to  emsnews
October 2, 2015 1:21 pm

+127 and a trip to Paris.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Roy Spencer
October 2, 2015 8:34 am

That is a very large part of it in a nutshell. Cause-driven mentality forgives you for things you haven’t even done yet. It justifies any damage you might do, people you might step on, any tactics you might employ. This is why these types are the most dangerous – they won’t stop. It’s the sort of mentality that fed the Inquisition, Eugenics, and witch-burnings – you are not swayed by screams if you have the courage of your cause. And very few people will run across a field with a bomb strapped to their back who believe they are in the wrong.
This is what scares me – warmists have essentially convinced a large portion of the world that humanity itself is destroying the planet – particularly the US – and basic survival activities too – heating homes, food production, transportation – the sorts of things we’re pretty much going to have to keep doing for as long as we’re all here. And I routinely hear humanity described as a ‘scourge’ or a ‘plague’ – and in particular I don’t like that ‘ninety-percent population reduction’ chorus. In this environment, lunacy such as genetically-altering humans thrives.
I’ve always said the biggest threat from Global Warming is what people might do to ‘save’ us from it.

Barbara
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 2, 2015 12:42 pm

For the “common-good” are indeed very old and often used arguments and used to justify just about anything.

Menicholas
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 2, 2015 12:46 pm

Oh, yes, people who torture us for our own good will never rest. At least those who do it for evil purposes will take a break now and then.

Menicholas
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 2, 2015 12:47 pm

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
– C. S. Lewis

Robert of Ottawa
October 2, 2015 6:42 am

And this is just one, previously unknown, deceiver receiver of government funds for global warming research. What about the other billions?

Tucci78
October 2, 2015 6:44 am

In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700). Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013. Combined with Shukla’s university salary, the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014. In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.

And prosecuting systematic and widespread peculation of this sort under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute is still somehow supposed to be “industrial-strength stupid”?

Reply to  Tucci78
October 2, 2015 10:43 am

Indeed it is industrial strength stupid. Look at the well-deserved opprobrium and vituperation directed in this and other threads at the people who suggested using RICO to settle scientific questions … and you want to deliberately go out and get exactly the same opprobrium and vituperation directed at YOU for making exactly the same suggestion?
Not much industrial strength smart in that …
Now, I’m sure you’ll say something like “but we’re aiming it at the right people” or “we’re prosecuting people who are wasting US government funds” … but that’s just what the people who want to use RICO on the skeptics are saying.
w.

GTL
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 12:40 pm

Agreed, RICO has been abused by prosecutors for what amounts to political persecution. This is what Shukla et. al. were encouraging with their letter to Obama. RICO needs to be repealed and replaced with legislation that will focus on organized crime as the original legislation intended. Anyone, good or bad, can be abused by RICO. As you imply, be careful what you ask for.

Menicholas
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 12:51 pm

A point well taken. But by treading too lightly, one risks being involved in a bazooka fight armed with only a fly swatter.

General P. Malaise
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 4:33 pm

Willis I’m a big fan and still waiting on you to write a book.
I agree that the RICO venue is a bad idea, I do think prosecution of some sort for fraud (theft) of public money is warranted. As well I understand that many of our problems stem from our asking government agencies to help us. We almost always regret having asked.
How would you propose to remedy the situation? I have yet to see relief for skeptics from any government agency and don’t expect to either.
cheers

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 4:52 pm

@ Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 at 10:43 am
It has taken 35 plus years for the warming meme to take on a life of its own. It will take another 35 years and a few nasty winters to reverse the trend. I believe in “Climate Change”. My kids believe in “Global Warming” because that is what they have been taught in school, in their “environmental” and forestry classes, and they are constantly inundated with EXTREME Climate Change events by the media and politicians. So they become “believers” just as I have always been a believer in “Climate Change” because I studied it for years as a personal interest and later on as an educational and business interest in engineering and farming. Plus I learned about weather and climate at the knee of my grand parents and great grand parents.
Belief systems will take a long time to change.
Thanks for keeping a cool head Willis.

Jtom
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2015 9:18 pm

Sorry, but I would advocate the opposite approach. Investigate both sides for RICO violations and let the chips fall where they may. A side-by-side comparison of $xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx tax payer dollars possible being used criminally vs $xx,xxx,xxx dollars of private money possibly used illegally would at least shut some people up as to who is “buying” scientist to produce certain results.
And leave the science, itself, out of it.

richard verney
October 2, 2015 6:46 am

I have no problem with private sector pay being set at whatever the business can afford, but it is about time that there was serious scrutiny of the amount of money paid out of the public purse. In my opinion this needs complete overhaul.
I do not see why anyone who is being paid out of public funds should be paid more than $200,000 per year (no matter how clever the accounting is). If someone on the public payroll has in addition a private source of income, then the amount paid by the tax payer should be reduced so that the total income that that person does not include any state/public money that would bring the annual salary above $200,000.

ferd berple
Reply to  richard verney
October 2, 2015 9:47 am

why is the government taking money from people making less than $50k and giving it to people making $200k? has the government taken on the role of Reverse Robin Hood. Take from the poor to give to the rich.

Chip Javert
Reply to  ferd berple
October 2, 2015 3:07 pm

ferd
I understand (and basically agree) with your point, However, just for the record, people making under $50k (in the USA) do not pay much in taxes (Social Security FICA withholding, yes; taxes, no)

bit chilly
Reply to  ferd berple
October 2, 2015 4:47 pm

you only just noticed this ferd ?

richdo
Reply to  ferd berple
October 3, 2015 5:33 am

@ Chip Jarvert
Any chance I can get you to prepare my federal income taxes Chip?
“For the record”: A married couple making $40,000/yr with no adjustments to gross income and taking the standard deduction has a taxable income of $19,700 and an “Income Tax” bill of $2,051.
That $2,051 is pretty darn significant to folks trying to scrape by on $40k/yr.

MikeN
October 2, 2015 6:46 am

I’m bothered by the idea that people get investigated and incarcerated for expressing their views on a political subject. If he hadn’t written this letter, no one would have noticed.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 7:45 am

Oh, really? Now that people have “noticed”, how is it that you call these financial shenanigans, political?

George E. Smith
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 7:54 am

As Old fighter pilots say: ” Tracers work equally well in both directions !! ”
g

timg56
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 2, 2015 2:03 pm

George,
That is an infantry saying.
By the time a fighter pilot sees tracers he is probably already hosed.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 2, 2015 4:56 pm

Actually if a fighter is flying really fast he might be shot down by his own tracers. Documented in Korea – Sabre jets in a dive could be hit by their own ammo traveling in an arc while they were accelerating downward in a straight line.
Looks a bit like Shukla may have been hit by his own bullet.

Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 8:21 am

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you kind of lost me here. How is committing fraud (allegedly) considered political speech?
Too bad for Mr.Shukla that he made the poor decision to stand up, wave and yell “LOOK AT ME” and is shocked to find that people did.

Jimbo
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 9:21 am

MikeN, isn’t double dipping is illegal?

MarkW
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 9:32 am

He’s not being investigated for expressing his views and if he is incarcerated, it won’t be for expressing his views.
He’s being investigated because he recently pronounced to the world that he was flagrantly violating the law.
Why do you desire to change the subject?

MikeN
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 10:07 am

Of course it is criminal actions. I don’t like the idea that because someone says something people don’t like, then people go hunting for if this person has done something criminal

Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 10:53 am

MikeN October 2, 2015 at 10:07 am

Of course it is criminal actions. I don’t like the idea that because someone says something people don’t like, then people go hunting for if this person has done something criminal

Seriously? This joker proposed throwing my friends and allies in jail because he doesn’t like their science, and in response people looked into his own actions … and you find this somehow wrong?
If the reports are true, he’s a crook. Not only that, he’s a stupid crook, because he stood up and waved a flag and shouted “All my enemies should be thrown in jail!” … and now you’re surprised when people investigate his past?
Really? Neither you nor he saw that coming?
I mean, I can see him being that deluded, but what on earth did you expect to happen?
I’m sorry, but your attempt to cast him as the victim in this piece simply doesn’t work.
w.

Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 11:04 am

You see, people are simply saying stuff that the “RICO20” “didn’t like”. So the RICO20 asked the President “to go hunting for if those people had done something criminal”. That indeed, was a nasty idea, but let me officially welcome you to Earth.
The hilarious part is that THEY were engaging in the exact type of behavior that they want to accuse others of.
If you don’t engage in criminal behavior, you have nothing to worry about.

Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 1:25 pm

MikeN: Isn’t that EXACTLY what Shuklas and the Rico20 were calling for … criminal investigations and incarceration of people for expressing their views on what has become a very political issue?
They petitioned the President of the United States to use RICO (which was designed to go after mobsters) in order to shut down debate on global warming!
How does that differ from what you are complaining about???

Menicholas
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 2:48 pm

So much so that I was not sure just which side Mike N was referring to.

Jtom
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 9:27 pm

MikeN, have you never heard the expression, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones? This result should always be expected, and there are no exemptions for greenhouses.

MarkW
Reply to  MikeN
October 3, 2015 8:44 am

That’s the way the world works. If you want to keep your illegal actions hidden, then don’t stand up and proudly declare them to the world.
I strongly suspect that it’s not the investigation that bothers you, rather who is being investigated.

Richard Keen
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 11:59 am

It’s a bit like Ward Churchill at the U of Colorado. He made some pretty offensive comments about people killed in 9-11, and an investigation figured that was academic freedom. But the investigation also put Churchill on the radar screen, and found evidence of plagiarism and fraud. Churchill was canned. He got his tenured job by claiming he was Native American. In reality he was as Indian as the Lone Ranger’s Tonto, but the University didn’t want to touch that issue, what with affirmative action, discrimination, diversity, and all those worm cans that would put a university with zillions of federal bucks on the federal diversity radar. I don’t think Churchill ever had to pay back any of his questionable pay. He filed a countersuit on the grounds that the original investigation was a violation of academic freedom, but the findings of plagiarism stood and he’s still canned (now doing the leftie speaking circuit).
There’s other cases of non-tenured faculty not being fired, but, er, not being renewed, either, for presenting non-politically correct lessons (from intelligent design to faulting corporate donors). In those cases there was no investigation or evidence of fraud or plagiarism, so someone just forgot to renew their contracts.
There was a later situation at the same university of an employee being investigated for presenting data in class that was allegedly encouraging students to disbelieve global warming and was “inappropriately polical”. Worse, having a disbeliever on board could jeopardize the university’s ability to cash in on the global warming gravy train. But a faculty committe found no evidence of fraud or plagiarism, only that the offensive data was not what they wanted shown in class. He wasn’t canned, but simply never asssigned to teach that particular class again (so they haff ways….).
In Shukla’s case I don’t think it really matters now how the case was discovered – even if by his own arrogant blabbering – but now that it has, he’ll enjoy the facts of the case.
I wonder if other RICO Twentysomethings are having paper fires in their backyards today?

Chip Javert
Reply to  MikeN
October 2, 2015 3:16 pm

MikeN
Gee, Mike. I doubt these guys’ political views are being investigated – I suspect it’s their fraud.
You appear to be advocating that these clowns should get some kind of immunity for the consequences of their political statements. You need a lesson in “free speech” is different than “consequences of free speech”.
It is ironic they stepped in this coup while advocating to curtail free speech via Federal RICO prosecutions.

Gerald Machnee
October 2, 2015 6:47 am

As you dig for gold, the hole can get too deep to crawl out of

richard verney
October 2, 2015 6:50 am

Bearing in mind that there has been no advance in the range of Climate Sensitivity since the inception of this ‘science’ it would appear that no progress in relation to the most important factor has been achieved these past 25 or so years, not withstanding the billions (probably trillions) poured into this ‘science’
it is time for a refund..

philincalifornia
Reply to  richard verney
October 2, 2015 7:23 am

You’re not kidding. People reading blogs like this have more of an idea of the range of climate sensitivity than this self-annointed morally superior wannabe collection of thieves and incompetents.

tolo4zero
October 2, 2015 6:51 am

“David Verardo, Mann’s handler at NSF, who told him in 2003 that he didn’t have to provide data to me – that Mann was entitled to his view of climate and I was entitled to mine”
Amazing, back in 2003 someone agreed you could have an opposing view on climate.
I guess he missed the orders ” the science is settled”

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  tolo4zero
October 2, 2015 8:00 am

No, Sir. This is upside down… David Verardo of NSF awarded large funding to Prof Mann of Penn State on the basis that “science is settled” instead of considering opposing views. And, when his puppet was asked for explanations, Mr. Verardo suggested that they are entitled to their view. Well, this is actually strange: Mann and Verrardo backed by the he NSF are entitled to their views on your and everyone else’s dime!!! Read Leo Szilard’s The Mark Gable Foundation…. It’s time to disband NSF and other funding agencies. They are unfixable and damage our science and higher education.

JBP
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 2, 2015 2:05 pm

It is time to disband pretty much all federal agencies except the DoD. All the rest can be re-consolidated into a single agency, forever limited to a cap of 10,000 employees and a budget cap of 3% of the previous year’s GDP. With no contract support.

Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 3, 2015 3:33 pm

I agree 100% Walt. As long as the major funding agencies remain under government control, Ike’s predictions will be the outcome. The federal government may have to control funding for “strategic” (read military or security) research, all the rest should to be given to independent and diversified granting agencies without political direction as to where the emphasis lies in research. Research funding has to be returned to the strength of the proposal and the record of the researcher, with some reserve for new scientists. This, of course, would be fought by the corrupt universities who skim overhead off of all the “institutes” that have proliferated in the last 30 years. Way too many PhDs have been turned out solely to proliferate the current system. Join the club and perpetuate the system. Want a job? Promote what the government asked for and maybe you can continue the deception that science is actually being done. Politically defined objectives obviate independent research.

emsnews
October 2, 2015 6:57 am

As we enter a long cooling cycle (low sunspot activity is one major indicator of this) the frauds will be obvious to everyone.

Pipa
October 2, 2015 7:05 am

I perfectly agree with the previous comment, ‘there should be no doubt any a rational mind that the whole AGW “Climate Change” Alarmism is being driven by the Largest Scientific Scandal in Modern History’.
Prof Shukla is only a small fish from a large sample of big big fishes. I think he is a scapegoat of this bigger scandal. The financial benifits of all those scientists who are responsible for propagating the scary AGW agenda need to be thoroughly investigated. It should be done at an urgency basis.
Their career upsurge and funding benifits for last 10 years should be made public. In turn, another similar record should be published for those who are not supporting scary AGW agenda and questioning that.
It is the time now to raise voices and remove such disparity within scientific communities and reward true scientists. At the same time the propaganda provocing, unethical scientists should be punished and penalised. Their interest and benifits should be disclosed openly.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Pipa
October 2, 2015 8:14 am

Well, there are hidden scandals in just about every realm of modern science: nonlinear optics with their nonlinear Schrodinger equation, astrophysics with their dark energy and dark matter, quantum mechanics with their string theory…. Heavy domination, grabbing all the money, expelling opposing views… Nothing new of this dirty academics politics. Same since Newton times, except for public funding – we pay for all this dirt!!! We, the people, must defund the agencies that fund science by giving money to Shuklas.

Walt The Physicist
Reply to  Pipa
October 2, 2015 8:22 am

The problem is that no human can actually judge who is a true scientist or which theory is correct. History proves this again and again. By the what all these theories are incorrect…. The “settled science” doesn’t exist!

Arsten
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 2, 2015 8:46 am

No human can directly prove which theory is correct. But every human can demonstrate a theory as false. That is the beauty of the way in which science is supposed to progress. 🙂

ferd berple
Reply to  Walt The Physicist
October 2, 2015 9:51 am

No human can directly prove which theory is correct. But every human can demonstrate a theory as false.
==================
doesn’t this argue that we should never fund science that seeks to prove a theory true and only fund science that seeks to prove a theory false? Otherwise we are funding things that are impossible at the expense of things that are possible.

rw
Reply to  Pipa
October 4, 2015 1:18 pm

How on earth is Shukla a “scapegoat”. Do you mean that someone called him in the dead of night and ordered him to write that petition? I’m sorry, but this is paranoid nonsense (default reasoning of a sort).

Mervyn
October 2, 2015 7:09 am

Ok, so what will this one be called?
Perhaps… “Shuklagate”?
Perhaps… “RICOGATE”?

Gary D.
Reply to  Mervyn
October 2, 2015 7:30 am

How about Climategate 2

Reply to  Gary D.
October 2, 2015 8:17 am

Correct – the ClimateGates are the biggest sources of scientific scandal on AGW, until a high level insider comes clean with proof. This ShuklaGate is a good addition.

Reply to  Gary D.
October 3, 2015 1:33 am

Ignoredbymsmgate

Reply to  Mervyn
October 2, 2015 8:26 am

How about we give the “Gate” thing a rest?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 8:49 am

RICOchet?

Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 9:35 am

Matthew, I share your sentiment but I’d like to see at least some consideration:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b7F3woI05UA/T25Bs7YE5dI/AAAAAAAADKk/w1_i6TG4UaA/s1600/oregon-state-pen-1200.jpg

Editor
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 10:01 am

> Leo Smith
> October 2, 2015 at 8:49 am
RICOchet?
I like it. Pity there’s no Chet involved though.

kim
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 11:42 am

Heh, RICOchet is good, but I like StevieMac’s ‘Shukla’s shillings’.
===============

Editor
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 11:57 am

An earlier reference to RICOchet:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/climate-activists-want-us-prosecuted-under-rico/#comment-2037512
kim
September 29, 2015 at 9:32 am Edit
RICOchet.
========

Editor
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 12:01 pm

I think RICOchet is much more descriptive than “Shukla’s shillings.”

kim
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 1:24 pm

Heh, Ric; the good ones are all susceptible to independent invention. See ‘Piltdown Mann’.
==================

Menicholas
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 1:52 pm

Haha…PrisonGate!

bit chilly
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 4:55 pm

“I like it. Pity there’s no Chet involved though.”
well ric, that would depend upon how you pronounce “chet”

urederra
Reply to  Mervyn
October 2, 2015 8:58 am

I am partial to “Shulkanado”

Reply to  urederra
October 2, 2015 9:48 am

Shulka’s Goldenballs

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Mervyn
October 2, 2015 9:42 am

Shukla Con

RockyRoad
Reply to  Mervyn
October 3, 2015 6:19 am

I suggest RICO2. (Notice the embedded “CO2”?)

October 2, 2015 7:25 am

And yet, they go after Dr. Willie Soon?

Ian W
Reply to  joe matais
October 2, 2015 7:46 am

@joe matais
It’s called ‘projection’ in psychology.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Ian W
October 2, 2015 2:20 pm

The whole RICO20 BS is projection. The speed at which Congress got on it makes me wonder if there’s a back story here, and they were already onto him, causing him to “project” everyone else being the bad guys. All he did was put his head above the parapet some more, along with those of some other doofuses.
… and why, if a RICO action is valid, why didn’t they just file one? It’s chump change out of $63.5 Million.

Leon0112
October 2, 2015 7:32 am

Actually, this is quite important in the debate over CAGW. The “sky is falling” crowd have consistently said skeptics are paid shills for Big Oil and we are holier than thou. And some of the public believe them. If this turns out to be a case of financial corruption of science, the holier than thou aura will be deflated.
When asked why scientists would lie about climate change, the answer will “for the money.”

MarkW
Reply to  Leon0112
October 2, 2015 9:36 am

It will only be deflated if the public actually hears about it.
So far none of the major media have covered this story, and I’ll be surprised if they ever do. Even if the guy ends up going to jail. The most they might do is mention that he’s been convicted of misusing public funds, without ever mentioning what funds and why.

herkimer
October 2, 2015 7:34 am

Whenever there is free money without oversight and accountability you have the potential for the trouble. I wonder who is monitoring the other $22 Billion spent on global warming related expenditures a year. One can see now why there is such an urgent attempt ( via the RICO letter) by the alarmists to shut down all information and debate on global warming .

MarkW
Reply to  herkimer
October 2, 2015 9:37 am

I thought Sherriff Joe, otherwise known as the Vice President had been put in charge of that?

Pipa
October 2, 2015 7:44 am

Actually, they need to stop true scientists like Dr. Willie Soon by hook or by crook. Attacking and demoralising them they try to serve their own purpose. This is the only way they can maintain their scary propaganda longer.
There should be an open list of publications of these two groups for last 10 years. Baised on bias among referees their publications are subjected to rejection, delay etc. In terms of citations also they are the sufferer as everything is linked up. The overall system needs to be investigated thoroughly.

October 2, 2015 7:50 am

What about the other side that hasn’t been heard from? NSF, NOAA, and NASA gave grants to the same GMU organization for work that was essentially redundant. Could the grantors be involved in the scheme? Were kick-backs involved? I suspect that the process of AGW grant awards is incestuous at best.

Richard M
Reply to  Newton Love
October 2, 2015 8:04 am

This may be the real meat. However, it will take a congressional investigation to get to the bottom of this. Will anyone in Congress have the necessary cahones?

Reply to  Richard M
October 2, 2015 8:07 am

The short answer is “NO” and the long answer is “NO.”

Djozar
October 2, 2015 7:52 am

Ok when am I going to see this in the main stream media? No evidence that they’ve mentioned it at all; please correct me if I’m wrong.

emsnews
Reply to  Djozar
October 2, 2015 8:21 am

With the GOP hearings, it will make the news eventually. The NYT will be very defensive about it, of course.

herkimer
October 2, 2015 7:53 am

According to the report below
‘The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for academic basic research across the entire spectrum of the sciences, engineering, and the social sciences. NSF USGCRP support totals $326 million in the 2014 Budget. “
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

Odin2
October 2, 2015 8:08 am

Possible legal avenues that should be investigated:
1. Conspiracy to defraud the United States:
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
2.” Federal and state false claims acts, whistleblower laws and qui tam statutes allow private citizens with knowledge of fraud against the government to bring what is known as a qui tam or false claims act action against the person or company engaged in the fraud.”
http://classactionconnect.com/whistleblower-lawsuits/federal-whistleblowers-report-fraud-against-the-federal-government/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam

Skidance
Reply to  Odin2
October 2, 2015 9:42 am

Great idea! But he’s tied up with Benghazi.

Reply to  Odin2
October 2, 2015 10:45 am

Skidance October 2, 2015 at 9:42 am
Great idea! But he’s tied up with Benghazi.
=======================================
Yeah, and how’s that going?

Menicholas
Reply to  Matthew W
October 2, 2015 4:38 pm

The FBI is now retrieving email from the server that Hillary wiped with a cloth.
They are being forwarded to the committee.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 3, 2015 8:06 am

Yes and so?
Until the MSM and media matters tells their people to get outraged, nothing will become of it.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Matthew W
October 3, 2015 9:11 am

It’s one of the reasons Clinton wanted her own server and claimed to have wiped it clean. Too bad she didn’t know any more about computers than “What….wipe it with a cloth or something?”

601nan
October 2, 2015 8:08 am

WOW.
The Shukla $63.5 million dollar Pyramid scheme! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Righteous Baby.
Ha ha

DGH
October 2, 2015 8:09 am

IGES has some really tough questions to answer. I don’t have any interest in defending their actions but there’s no reason to pile on.
Anthony writes, “There’s apparently an $800,000 annual salary and an organization full of Shukla family members that has produced next to no results for the millions received.” His link suggests that only one paper resulted from grant 1338427. Although his point is well made – the Center is not a model of financial efficiency – a search of the IGES website suggests that it produced more than one paper for that grant.
They do produce regular progress reports that show many papers emerged each year. The following link, which also supports the claim that there was a split from IGES, provides information about the 2014-15 results from COLA.
ftp://iges.org/pub/kinter/Projects/omnibus/COLA_2014_2019_Progress/Kinter_COLA_MAPP_briefing_May2015_handout.pdf
And the following presentation claims that the Center produced >500 papers between 1993 and 2011.
ftp://iges.org/pub/kinter/COLA_SAC/2011/Kinter_future_plans_SAC2011.pptx
Steve Mcintyre has this to say at Climate Audit, “Steve: the center did legitimate work.”

Bob Kutz
Reply to  DGH
October 2, 2015 12:44 pm

THAT may be the case. (legitimate work, etc.) The link provided seems to show a powerpoint demonstrating that they have produced more results than what has been claimed here. Most of the information in that powerpoint ought to be easily verifiable by someone with access to an academic library. So we’ll probably get a report on the veracity of that document.
HOWEVER; double dipping and self dealing using government grant money is the real topic at hand. If half of what has been alleged is true, he could have a huge problem on his hands.
Of course, given the current (highly corrupt) state of our federal government, he, like Hillary Clinton, may have clearly demonstrated wanton violation of federal law, and yet go un-prosecuted for it.
Or there could be a whitewash. Even that might be difficult, given the nature of what he is alleged to have done.
(i.e. if he was receiving more than his salary, he was double dipping, kinda hard to whitewash that, further, if his organization hired his relatives and paid exorbitant salaries for little or no actual work, very difficult to make that okay. )

A C Osborn
Reply to  Bob Kutz
October 2, 2015 1:06 pm

Interesting that the first pdf shows that they are in to Climate Modelling, in particular training for it.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bob Kutz
October 2, 2015 1:11 pm

Bob K
I think the real issue is whether or not they were motivated to call for a criminal investigation of something that is the figment of their own imaginations, with a view to securing themselves as the bell ringer for climate alarm, and then to reap benefits from what look like some pretty soft grants.
The magic of endless public money seems to have been in part driven by a ham-fisted attempt at misdirection.
The idea of a RICO investigation into the unholy alliances that permeate the tiny climate science community is very attractive. Bandwagoning is to be expected, but there is a cabal at the centre of this nonsense and they have definitely conspired to enrich themselves both with grant monies and honoured positions.
The big mafia investigation was called “clean hands”. Let’s call this one “clear air”. Assign a special prosecutor, start asking questions.

G. Karst
October 2, 2015 8:10 am

I haven’t come across ANY significant reporting of this in the MSM. Certainly doesn’t seem to have penetrated Joe public’s attention yet. If it isn’t reported widely, it will be swept from view, like climategate. All conscious Americans should be writing their representatives demanding answers.
Donald Trump needs to use this corruption and practice as a spear point. GK

RockyRoad
Reply to  G. Karst
October 3, 2015 9:13 am

The MSM haven’t mentioned a Republican was president during the Civil War, either.

October 2, 2015 8:12 am

Please make sure this story keeps dripping all the way through the Paris climate talks. But, please also be aware that it is veering dangerously close to too-complex-for-the-public-to-understand. The facts, to date, need to be sorted out — graphically, if possible, from most significant to least — with ramifications for public taxpayer money spelled out. Why should the common taxpayer care about this? The message should be something that readers can successfully repeat to others, from memory.
Whatever needs to be done, please make it easy for the public to understand the issue, before the clean-up crew comes in and starts distracting the public. They’re trying their best to ignore the controversy right now; this is the best time to define the issue for the public.

emsnews
Reply to  Chris Reeve
October 2, 2015 11:19 am

Rampant nepotism as an entire clan raided the cupboards of taxpayer money is easy to understand. This is why the media is NOT covering it.

Dalcio Dacol
October 2, 2015 8:15 am

Hope this is brought to the attention of NSF’s Inspector General too:
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/

Dan
October 2, 2015 8:17 am

Wow, I may run out of popcorn on this storyline!

Mike th skeptic
October 2, 2015 8:18 am

Your Global Warming Alarmism and Fraud dollars at work!

frozenohio
October 2, 2015 8:20 am

Apparently, I’m in the wrong business!

Reply to  frozenohio
October 2, 2015 10:53 am

Me too. Let’s present the US gov with an innovative solar panel that is ball shaped.
O.K. so cylinders didn’t work.
But, I’m sure that with some fancy sounding pseudo tech speak and some claimed of over-unity efficiency and negative cost, we could bamboozle the US taxpayer out of a few billion $.
one thing that I have learned in my travels, NO IDEA IS TOO DUMB TO OBTAIN A GOVT. GRANT.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 2, 2015 7:07 pm

From what I could gather, Solyndra’s cylindrical solar modules were workable and fairly efficient energy producers, especially on a white roof (since their circular tubes could face the reflective roof surface at the same time they faced outward toward the sun. According to more than a few people (investors, I suppose), Solyndra’s problem was that it was made in America and could not compete with an explosion of Chinese solar panels suddenly being manufactured at a fraction of the cost, and likely without environmental restrictions. The Chinese presumably won that battle based on cost. Whether gigantic government subsidies are fair for the Chinese and not for us is a logistical, economic and ethical problem for bigger hat sizes than mine. Here’s a comment from a reader reviewing the article “Solyndra: Its Technology and Why it Failed”, posted online here in 2011:
http://www.edn.com/design/power-management/4368710/Solyndra-Its-technology-and-why-it-failed

Solyndra knew that cost was the key factor, but unlike all the brilliant geniuses in the comment section, didn’t believe the price of Chinese solar modules would drop 80% in 3 years. Solyndra could put more than 2X the Wp on a reflective white roof, the tracking worked, the niche market was huge (Walmart alone has 14GW’s of such roofs in N. America), customers loved it, and the product was highly innovative…it was just too late to get to the right cost curves.
May 21, 2015 12:05 PM EDT

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 2, 2015 8:23 am

When this ultimately hits the headlines the warmistas will be very quick to proclaim that the Shuklas really weren’t faithful AGW followers after all and that as far as they are concerned nothing has changed.

Dave in Canmore
October 2, 2015 8:30 am

And what did the taxpayers get for 4.2 million dollars? One single make-believe paper filled with unverifiable speculation about “what would happen if…”
Read this tragic waste of money paper here:
http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/879/2015/hessd-12-879-2015-print.pdf
Return on investment is zero. Waste waste and more waste. The NSF should not be allowed to disperse millions of other people’s dollars with no oversight and no due diligence. The NSF needs to have its powers frozen until auditors can examine what the people’s money is getting in return value.
Enough is enough.

Mike Smith
October 2, 2015 8:46 am

But how many other AGW “scientists” are there slurping at the trough?
Shukla wasn’t the first, last or only one to work the system in this manner.
This examination of his modus operandi may help us to identify a few more.

A Bit Jaded
Reply to  Mike Smith
October 2, 2015 11:16 am

Several years ago I exchanged e-mails with, and eventually met and interviewed, a dendrochronologist who was researching forest fire history at a local University. I was doing some research of my own and he was generous with his time and quite helpful. As I became aware of the magnitude of the funding for CAGW, curiosity got the better of me and I took a look at his CV, which was posted on his personal website.
Over a dozen years he had received perhaps 3-4 million dollars to head various programs, most in 100,000-sized increments. A couple of his grants topped a million.
I don’t know how many profs post such information about themselves, but I came away with the impression that grant recipients view their grant history as a sort of badge of honor, or an advertisement, stating, in effect, “Look what I can bring in for the good of the old Alma Mater!” Universities, in turn, rank themselves on how much they can bring in annually for research. Under such a system, it would seems likely that professors develop a reputation for success at bringing in funds. Success once means higher likelihood of success in future applications – like the “hot hand” in basketball. Ultimately, in answer to your questions, there’s a less intrusive way to see these figures, since all NSF and NOAA grants, recipients, and recipients’ research subjects are listed in the agencies’ budgets somewhere – we’ve seen the numbers on this and other web sites.
The particular teaching scientist I spoke to was receiving (earning, if you like) several million. The funding was ongoing to provide for programs of multi-year research. I believe his grants were typical for those targeting programs across the U.S. which insinuate (or blatantly state) a belief in anthropogenic global warming. I know that some unbiased scientists are receiving funding by NSF, NOAA or NASA, but it also seems painfully obvious that young scientists today must toe the line if they expect governmental help. My nephew, a geology graduate, has received tens of thousands in scholarship help at University of Arizona, multiple paid-for trips to South America and Nepal, and has just received his first 100,000 grant to be paid out over the new few years for his endorsement of the alarmist talking points, as he researches warming. When you are young, how hard it must be to resist this siren song. Older researcher should know better, in my opinion.

Scott Wilmot Bennett
October 2, 2015 8:47 am

I came upon the term Omnibus twice today. It sparked vivid memories of my first introduction to the word and my own paradoxical mental images of a bus that was actually a train.
Researching “Ocean Acidification” (A term and field of study that drives me crazy!), I came across the US Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009:

SubtitleD – Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009
Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring Act of 2009 or the FOARAM Act –
Section12404 –
Directs the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council to: (1) coordinate federal activities on ocean acidification and establish an interagency working group; and (2) develop a strategic plan for federal research and monitoring on ocean acidification. Requires specified ocean acidification programs in NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Authorizes appropriations.

The second occasion was in an IGES publication (Science Review 2002-2006) where President J. Shukla described its funding arrangement as an Omnibus Grant:

“The work of COLA is of very high quality scientifically, and the omnibus Grant allows a focused collaboration that produces a coordinated attack on an important scientific problem that would not be possible without an omnibus Grant* of this nature.”
“The remarkable effectiveness of COLA is a consequence of the strong interactions between staff working toward common goals. . This strong “value-added” component depends on the multi- agency form of the funding it receives, the abilities of NASA, NSF, and NOAA program managers to collectively provide such funding, and COLA’s modest size and continuity of staff; these are all essential to maintain COLA’s capacity to promote its strong staff interactions.”

*I stand corrected, the term Omnibus (Which was occasioned by the mental image of gravy trains) appeared more than twice 😉

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
October 2, 2015 11:16 am

I remember a 1950s TV program “Omnibus.”

Reply to  Slywolfe
October 2, 2015 12:45 pm

Not to be confused with the 80’s TV show, “Supertrain.”

Reply to  Slywolfe
October 2, 2015 2:15 pm

I don’t remember “Supertrain.”

MarkW
Reply to  Slywolfe
October 3, 2015 8:51 am

It was supposed to a “Love Boat” on rails, didn’t even last one season.

Phillip Bratby
October 2, 2015 8:47 am

Where is the oversight of the contracts by NSF?

Duke C.
October 2, 2015 8:48 am

According to Scopus (free version) Shukla hasn’t published anything since 2013 and # of citations has dropped to 0:
http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7102486629

Jimbo
Reply to  Duke C.
October 2, 2015 9:53 am

They must have published a lot in 2006. IGES paid host to
Institute of Global Environment and Society – IGES
Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies – COLA
Center for Research on Environment and Water – CREW
http://web.archive.org/web/20060610040410/http://iges.org/
http://web.archive.org/web/20060615025233/http://crew.iges.org/donate.html

observa
October 2, 2015 8:51 am

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of funds at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”
Never mind chaps we’ll all help you find the missing teat.

Resourceguy
October 2, 2015 8:51 am

NSFgate

David C, Greene
October 2, 2015 9:12 am

All the IRS Forms 990 filed by Jagadish Shukla are public. They should be examined for evidence of perjury or false declaration.

Reply to  David C, Greene
October 2, 2015 10:03 am

There is at least false declaration on his Virginia employee discloser form. See below and the evolving comments thread at Climate Audit. His arrangements apparently also violate Virginia state law independant of false declaration. Both he and the NSF are in a heap of trouble.

Editor
Reply to  David C, Greene
October 2, 2015 10:04 am

They have. I haven’t looked at them, but Roger Pielke Jr. has, and probably several other people.

Alan Robertson
October 2, 2015 9:13 am

Shukla has been receiving NSF grants since at least 1998.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102934

observa
October 2, 2015 9:13 am

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”
Farewell from Dwight D Eisenhower

October 2, 2015 9:25 am

Don’t overplay the hand.
Alarmist “Arctic sea ice may disappear in 2015”
Alarmist “Maybe the biggest scandal”
Learn. At least frame it thusly “Will this too be whitewashed”

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 2, 2015 11:31 am

I don’t know… Paris is upcoming. Seems to me that the headline “Climate science funding thieves descend on Paris ” is one I would invite… as per the PR disaster called Copenhagen, rather, Climategate.

timg56
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 2, 2015 2:22 pm

Listen to what Mosher is saying.
It is an interesting story line.
If any wrong doing is proved, it will certainly be an excellent example of karma.
The opening track is as Steven points out – will it get ignored, swept under the rug, whitewashed? Because if it does, there goes your scandal. Of whatever size.
As far as any impact on the Paris dealings – about as much as peeing in the ocean. As far as the US is concerned, what matters is not what American representatives agree to at the conference, but what Congress agrees to fund. It is possibly that arena where proven illegal activity at IGES might have an impact.

Kent Clizbe
October 2, 2015 9:25 am

If all the efforts of all the people who read and comment on this website were invested in a whistleblower recruiting effort, using the Federal False Claims Act, the scam would have been exposed, prosecuted, and collapsed many years ago.
“The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, also called the “Lincoln Law”) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal Government’s primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the Government.[1] The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called “relators” under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government (informally called “whistleblowing” especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit). Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15–25 percent) of any recovered damages. As of 2012, over 70 percent of all federal Government FCA actions were initiated by whistleblowers. Claims under the law have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs, and dominate the list of largest pharmaceutical settlements. The government recovered $38.9 billion under the False Claims Act between 1987 and 2013 and of this amount, $27.2 billion or 70% was from qui tam cases brought by relators.”
There are many lawyers just waiting, with their motors running, to take on qui tam cases against Federal contractors.
The entire AGW scam is run, supported, advanced by federal contractors–that’s what Mann, Shukla, and every one of the fraudsters is.
This is their achilles heel.
We can crowdsource the search for whistleblowers and accelerate their downfall.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Kent Clizbe
October 2, 2015 3:38 pm

Gosh, you make this sound like a trivial task.
Guess you’ve never worked with Federal court procedures and rules of evidence, Much less, a decided bias on the part of the decision-making parties.
Good luck.

October 2, 2015 9:50 am

Some additional information. I used the state of Viginia employees directory to confirm that as a Prof at GMU, Shukla is a state of virginia employee. Over at Climate Audit, someone checked with the UVA about Shuklas arrangements and was told that is illegal under Virginia state law. Moreover, SM has now obtained his Virginia state employment disclosure forms for 2013 and 2014. His sole ownership of IGES was not ( to the mandatory do you? question he answered no.), and therefor no Schedule F was filed stating financial interests including income. It seems now quite clear that Shukla has at least broken Virginia state law. And it certainly appears GMU is complicit given their admited knowledge since 2013 celebrating the integration of IGES and of its DBA COLA (not a separate entity for federal grant purposes) into GMU. The Virginia Attorney General and or OIG need to be brought into the loop

rogerknights
Reply to  ristvan
October 2, 2015 12:54 pm

And SourceWatch! Don’t forget SourceWatch!

October 2, 2015 9:56 am

‘largest science scandal in US history’
is an exaggeration I think. See comment from Mosher.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 2, 2015 10:38 am

“see comment from Mosher”
No thanks

GTL
October 2, 2015 9:58 am

The larger issue is this may prove that proponents of AGW have had and continue to have strong bias to keep alive the impression of AGW in spite of evidence to the contrary. AGW advocates unfairly accuse skeptics of bias when they are ones with motivation for bias. The exorbitant compensation that can be realized form AGW research would bias anyone against proving the hypothesis wrong.
Regardless of the legal issues which may be very real in this instance, I believe this demonstrates the moral disintegration, greed, and disregard for truth that can come from conversion of public funds to personal benefit.
If this is an isolated occurrence then it will be nothing more than the failure of a single scientist or organization and little else will come of this. I fear this type of activity is much more widespread in the academic community and if so will be a catastrophic event for CAGW advocacy reaching much farther than climate-gate.

GTL
Reply to  GTL
October 2, 2015 10:02 am

realized “from” not form

rogerknights
Reply to  GTL
October 2, 2015 12:57 pm

“The exorbitant compensation that can be realized form AGW research would bias anyone against proving the hypothesis wrong.”
As was memorably said long ago here, “A conspiracy is unnecessary if a carrot is sufficient.”

REG
October 2, 2015 10:00 am

My bet is NCAR s the center of the AGW racket. Anyone with the time and inclination to follow the money into and out of this organization could have a huge story.
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12809

Henry Galt
October 2, 2015 10:02 am

This will go nowhere – except into our quiver as another arrow to fire at fence-sitters, the ‘undecided’ and those to come new to this (non)debate.
It is a drop in the vast ocean of funding to support a science that was settled in the past century – round about the time global warming stopped(again).
Feynman, Vonnegut and Crichton, working together, couldn’t have spun a more fascinating piece of science crime fiction.

Eliza
October 2, 2015 10:03 am

I doubt that we will ever be hearing from the likes of Mosh, Zeke, Phil, Stokes, ect once this is finalized as they are in the loop (I presume paid to work for AGW). I would not be surprised to see their AGW related websites “disappear” in the next few months. Me thinks Shukla will in fact go to jail for this.

littlepeaks
October 2, 2015 10:03 am

Meh — I googled “Jagdish Shukla” in relation to this “scandal”, and the only web sites this came up in were this blog, a few other blogs, and a conservative site or two. No MSM. Looks like he’ll get a free pass. 🙁

Claude Harvey
October 2, 2015 10:12 am

It’s usually a mess when folks gather round the government honey-pot. Once you’ve established your position at the rim of that pot, you’re expected to elbow out a bit of room along side you for friends and family. Multiple hands dip faster than only a single pair and the “Miss Manners” becomes a distant memory.

October 2, 2015 10:14 am

Unfortunately for the ordinary technically and economically literate citizen, his money is taken from him in the form of taxes and then spent by technically and economically imbecilic bureaucrats.
I was just perusing the smug official Whitehouse document describing their Recovery Act disaster and came across the following:
“With over $787 billion in funding, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one of the single boldest
and largestinvestments in the U.S. economy in the nation’s historyThe Recovery Act is supporting breakthrough innovations in both solar and wind”.
It then goes on to say shortly after the introduction; “FloDesign in Massachusetts is developing a novel shrouded wind turbine design with advanced aerospace technology that should reduce the cost and noise of wind energy dramatically. ”
Sounds brilliant to someone with the mentality of an excitable schoolchild.
But – will it this magical turbine acheive that goal?
Answer – NO.
Since putting shrouds around wind turbines is neither a novel idea, nor a good idea, as explained below.
This is not innovation, this is simply theft from the state by charlatans.
Anyway – the proof of the pudding – the FloDesign turbine was being touted in 2008.
It is 2015 – where are their revolutionary game-changing turbines? Where are the figures that back up their initial claims? See the link below for a more detailed analysis of why this investment is a disaster:
http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2944&cHash=be02eb02d7e684e2e8a9394fa03c15e3
And the link to the most moronic document in the history of moronic documents. Straight from the theiving cash guzzling morons at the Whitehouse:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Recovery_Act_Innovation.pdf

H.R.
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 2, 2015 10:45 am

indefatigablefrog October 2, 2015 at 10:14 am

And the link to the most moronic document in the history of moronic documents. Straight from the theiving [sic] cash guzzling morons at the Whitehouse:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Recovery_Act_Innovation.pdf

There is a graph in that document showing the billions thrown at various technologies that supposedly would jumpstart the new high-tech, green economy (huzzahs!). Coincidentally, I also heard today that 94 million Americans are out of the workforce, putting us at a rate second only to the Great Depression, I believe.
Where are all those high-tech green jobs? The actual results from all of those billions that were shoveled out are… disappointing.

old44
October 2, 2015 10:18 am

With any luck and a bit of persistence by the investigators we may be able to chalk another one up to a case of arrogance by the self righteous.

jgriggs
October 2, 2015 10:20 am

This whole exercise is the textbook definition of poetic justice and irony. I hope this guy’s fall from grace makes other climate scientists think twice about how they perform their jobs going forward. I doubt it will, but who knows, fear is a powerful motivator.

Eliza
October 2, 2015 10:28 am

If he doesn’t go to jail now or pronto, he would be thinking of getting back to India with the whole family for sure. He can have some drinks with Pachauri at the local LOL

Reed Coray
October 2, 2015 10:29 am

A headline I expect to see any day now. Breaking News! Jagdish Shukla just admitted he is FOIA of climate gate fame and his obvious RICO “own goal” was a continuing effort to derail the AGW gravy train.

David Silvester
October 2, 2015 10:29 am

Anthony, I’m a lurker around these parts, but I’d like to put in my two cents.
Right now is a confluence of events that may allow us to show this fraud to the world and actually have it pay attention outside of the climate change doubter community. Today there is a minor uproar over how poorly the American GFS weather model performed in relation to the the ECMWF or European weather model in the forecast track of Hurricane Joaquin. This caused the National Hurricane Center to make official forecasts that had my home state of Virginia in the cross-hairs of a CAT 4 Hurricane. Then it was NJ, then NYC/Long Island, etc. At the same time the ECMWF was consistently predicting that the Hurricane would never come close to the Atlantic Seaboard. People are irate up and down the East Coast over the number of events cancelled or postponed and the people inconvenienced by a busted forecast. Even the NY Times is paying attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/upshot/hurricane-joaquin-forecast-european-model-leads-pack-again.html?_r=0
If we can let people know that if the United States spent our science research money on the right things, like upgrading our operational weather models rather than things like the alleged fraud by Dr. Shukla, IGES and others in the mess, then we could have operational weather models as good as if not better than the ECMWF. My biggest message is that there is plenty of money for Scientific research, but that it is being siphoned off and wasted (sometimes criminally as may be the case here) on Climate Change research.

Reply to  David Silvester
October 2, 2015 12:15 pm

A supporing tidbit from footnote 1 of my guest post here on climate models last month. In 2014, the US spent $2.66 billion on direct climate research. The NOAA NWS weather research budget was $82 million.

Barbara
Reply to  ristvan
October 2, 2015 1:21 pm

Is the general public confused and think that climate research is the same as weather research so willing to spend huge sums on climate research?
Has this subject ever been polled?

Chip Javert
Reply to  ristvan
October 2, 2015 3:45 pm

No; but it’s been modeled.
(tee hee)

Reply to  David Silvester
October 2, 2015 1:01 pm

I’m sure our forecasts get much better when the timeframe is 50-to-100 years. /sarc

601nan
October 2, 2015 10:30 am

Ref. Wikipedia: Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve “wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties” [That puts NSF in jeopardy all the way back to the Clinton (if not H.W. Bush) Administration!]. In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
How many of the RICO20 were grant reviewers to Shukla’s NSF grants?
How much in the way of ‘kickbacks’ did Shukla dole out to the ‘reviewers, aka RICO20’?
How much of the $63.5 million USA dollars went to support Shukla’s ‘enterprises’ that are supported by the India Government. Without a Memorandum Of Understanding between the USA Department of State and the Government of India, Shukla and the RICO20 (and George Mason University’s entire administration) could be in more than just Felony jeopardy.
Ha ha

JP
Reply to  601nan
October 2, 2015 11:33 am

I wonder if there is a way to see just how deep this scandal goes? Who else is feeding at the trough? How much money are they getting? This professor is not exactly well known. The only reason I heard of Shukla was because of his demands for RICO investigations.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JP
October 2, 2015 5:16 pm

I’m thinking that they’ll come down hard on Shukla and that will be it… no investigations into NSF, NOAA, NASA, EPA or any other gov’t agency promoting the whole climate fear meme in order to increase their own funding and power over the citizenry.

October 2, 2015 10:45 am

I have only just now encountered another very impressive and very extensive blog documenting the vast scale of the green stimulus disaster. In all its hideous details.
Recommended reading and reference: http://greencorruption.blogspot.co.uk/
” As our nation drowns in debt, the Obama’s Energy Department has already disbursed in excess of $252 billion. Meanwhile, since 2009 the president’s aggressive and deceptive plot to “save the planet” already exceeds $200 billion of U.S. taxpayers, which factors in both stimulus and non-stimulus funds.
These funds are not only being dispersed out of the DOE and the Ex-Im Bank of the United States, but also the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Defense (DOD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as other federal, state, and local government agencies and programs that are giving out “green” subsidies.
And let’s not forget that unknown to the American public is another green government freebie blowing out of the stimulus package. The 1603 Grant Program “offered project developers the option to select a one-time cash payment in lieu of taking the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or the Production Tax Credit (PTC), for which they would have otherwise been eligible.” Administered by the Treasury Department, as of August 3, 2015, this program that was also touted as a jobs creator (yet most are temporary), has dished out $24.5 billion of free taxpayer cash.
Still, hundreds of billion of green energy spending is not enough because this scheme works in conjunction with the ongoing climate change mandates, rules, regulations and executive orders in order to control every aspect of our lives –– all surrounded by an enormous fear-mongering campaign to scare the masses into submission.
However, these figures don’t account for how U.S. agencies, this past February, “committed some $4 billion for solar energy companies to build up green energy in India.”
And what about the billions of dollars that the Obama administration has spent to “save the developing world from the presumed ills of global warming, mainly through a program called Global Climate Change Initiative, which was recently documented by Judicial Watch.”

Mark Johnson
October 2, 2015 10:45 am

Some enterprising soul should report this to the Inspector General for the NSF. Here is the IG’s website: http://www.nsf.gov/oig/

joe
October 2, 2015 10:46 am

does any one know the situation of Dr Murry Salby, who was accused of mishandling NSF grant at U Co? We should make serious noise if these two situationjs are treated differently

Reply to  joe
October 2, 2015 2:40 pm

Indeed we should.
Murry Salby was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.
The investigation, which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money. The NSF OIG concluded that:
“the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.”
The NSF subsequently decided to only “debar” Dr Salby for three years, preventing him from accessing any NSF research grants or being involved in work related to them.
I would expect that the NSF OIG and other relevant organizations would carry out similar investigations into Shukla’s activities.

Lou005
Reply to  joe
October 2, 2015 4:54 pm

And what the NSF claimed about Salby eventually fell over. More interesting is why they went after him.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

Reply to  Lou005
October 3, 2015 7:02 am

No it didn’t, Salby denied it, surprise. I take it you will adopt the same approach should Shukla be investigated and deny it you will accept his version? After all Joe was asking that they both be treated the same.

jimheath
October 2, 2015 11:04 am

Of course the Emperor has clothes.

October 2, 2015 11:07 am

As I have come to observe repeatedly; “CAGW, created ,orchestrated and protected from investigation, by our bureaucrats.
This policy based evidence manufacturing could not have happened without the connivance of our “civil servants”.
Thank Maurice Strong for being their frontman but this new manifestation of the Emperors New Clothes, required committees and the wisdom of “committee think” to have ever emerged as a tax syphoning meme, let alone a fear based government policy that has lasted over 30 years.
The blessing of the bureaus be upon you.
Or as Kipling put it, The Lords of the Copybook….

October 2, 2015 11:20 am

“… we might be dealing with the same sort of ego induced blindness that led to the downfall of IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri. ”
Maybe I’m wrong, but this raises suspicion that Shukla is Pachauri’s strawman and possibly brib… eh… paid by him?

Paul Westhaver
October 2, 2015 11:25 am

Lewandowsky…
It seems to me that cross-discipline efforts are ripe for abuse. As an example, consider a [sic] psychologist entering into the climate science sphere by way of polling skeptics as the phrenologist Lewandowsky keeps trying to do.
I would postulate that he is mining funds from astrology/psychology sources and UN sanctioned sources, private Soroses 🙂 and Obama government sources. I would further postulate that his various applications look very similar. I wonder if he is also double dipping?
Anyone FOI this “scientist”?
Or any other of the wacko cross-discipline fund scavengers?

JP
October 2, 2015 11:30 am

The House can investigate all it wants. The Senate can investigate this scandal until their blue in the face. Official reports can be published and recommendations can be made. Congress, however, cannot prosecute. For Shukla it is race against time. If the GOP wins in 2016, will a Republican DOJ spend time and resources indicting and prosecuting him? I doubt it.
This episode might be embarrassing. But, that humiliation will be limited to the blogesphere and Drudge. The MSM will ignore it. And Republicans feed at the Beltway trough as deeply as anyone. No one inside the Beltway wants to see a nickle of taxpayer money being lost because of a scandal involving a rather unknown and unstable professor.

rogerknights
Reply to  JP
October 2, 2015 1:09 pm

“Congress, however, cannot prosecute.”
But it can send a recommendation for prosecution to the AG. If he doesn’t act on it, then that’s something he and his party will have to answer for, or at least be on the defensive about.

MarkW
Reply to  rogerknights
October 3, 2015 8:56 am

The only way they can “answer” for it, is if the public punishes the party at the next election.
Why would the public punish them for not prosecuting a case the public has never heard of?

Eternaloptimist
October 2, 2015 11:46 am

Shukla may well be the sewage here, but far worse is the sewer, the NSF