Are Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 Guilty of Racketeering?

Guest opinion by Marlo Lewis, Jr, CEI

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA , Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL, Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX, Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY, Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

Controversy continues to swirl around the September 1 letter from 20 climate scientists to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.” The scientists allege that the aforementioned interests “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, in order to forestall America’s response to climate change.” In May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called for a RICO investigation of “fossil fuel companies and their allies.” The scientists “strongly endorse” Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal.

What boggles the mind is not that 20 climate scientists would attempt to stifle debate, drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, and punish those who do not worship at the altar of “consensus.” There’s no shortage of “progressive” intolerance in these times. Using RICO to silence opponents is fairly tame compared to environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s demand that fossil-fuel executives be tried for treason (the usual punishment for which is death).

What’s noteworthy about the RICO 20 is the scientists’ lack of self-awareness—their inability to judge themselves by criteria they invoke to condemn others. They have no clue how easily they can be hoist on their own petard.

What is it, exactly, that fossil-fuel interests conspire to hide from Congress and the public, according to the RICO 20?

The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

Well, the “stability of the Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years” is not all it’s cracked up to be. The planet has been through three cycles of cooling and warming in the past 2,600 years, and experienced a major cooling event 8,200 years ago (see pp. xiv-xv of this book). In addition, substantial evidence indicates that humanity suffered in cold periods and prospered in warm periods. But let that pass.

The core issue in the global warming debate is not whether climate change risks exist but how much is really known about them (EPA’s climate change impacts report, for example, is rife with flimflam) and whether the usual set of “climate solutions” would actually make the world a better place or would instead be a cure worse than the alleged disease.

The RICO 20—and indeed all educated climate campaigners—have to know several key facts they never mention in their advocacy campaigns:

(1) Affordable, reliable, scalable carbon-based energy has made, and continues to make, indispensable contributions to human health and well-being. Over the past 250 years, global average life expectancy more than doubled, global per capita GDP increased nearly eightfold, and global population increased more than sevenfold. Those positive trends, which are the best overall indicators of human health and welfare, are strongly correlated with rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil energy-supported economic development has vastly improved the health, welfare, and sustainability of the human species.

(2) Among the many benefits of an energy-rich (chiefly fossil-fueled) civilization is decreasing vulnerability to climate-related risks. Historically, drought was the most lethal form of extreme weather, as it directly limits access to food and water. In the 1920s, drought killed an estimated 472,000 people worldwide. Since then roughly 90% of all industrial CO2 emissions in history entered the atmosphere, and the world warmed about 0.8°C. If fossil-fueled development were unsustainable, drought-related mortality would be skyrocketing. Instead, deaths and death rates related to drought have declined by 99.8% and 99.9%, respectively.

The chief factors responsible for that stunning progress were a host of fossil energy-supported technologies such as tractors, harvesters, irrigation pumps, motorized transport, communications networks, fertilizers, pesticides, refrigeration, and plastics. Emergency relief programs also play an important role, but they depend on the economic surpluses and technological capabilities of energy-rich societies.

In sum, as energy scholar Alex Epstein observes, fossil-fueled development has made Earth’s climate dramatically more livable.

(3) Globally, poverty remains the leading cause of preventable disease and premature death. A key factor hindering poverty eradication, as well as a major source of indoor air pollution, which kills an estimated 3.5 million people per year, is energy poverty. Even today, more than one billion people have no access to electricity and billions more have too little energy to support development.

(4) So-called “climate stabilization” targets cannot be met without raising energy prices in industrial countries and restricting access to fossil fuels even—indeed, especially—in developing countries, which are experiencing rapid emissions growth as they industrialize. The chart below, courtesy of Stephen Eule of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, shows what industrial and developing countries must do to reduce global CO2 emissions 60% below 2010 levels by 2050, as proposed by the European Union in the COP 21 climate treaty negotiations.

Even if industrial countries magically reduce their emissions to zero by 2050, developing countries would still have to cut their current CO2 emissions by 35% for the world to meet the 60-by-50 target. If, less unrealistically, industrial countries reduce their emissions by 80%, developing countries would have to cut their current emissions almost in half. Nobody knows how developing countries could conquer poverty over the next 35 years while reducing fossil fuel consumption 35% to 48% below current levels.

Thus, to paraphrase the RICO 20, climate policies pose a “high risk of seriously destabilizing the global economy and harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.”

As the RICO 20 must also know, advertisements for pharmaceutical products routinely warn of unpleasant, even fatal, side effects such as thoughts of suicide, reduced ability to fight infections, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and cancer. Only snake oil salesmen peddle risk-free remedies. Yet our climate physicians carry on as if nothing could possibly go wrong with a global treaty putting politicians and bureaucrats in charge of planning the world’s energy future.

Could such behavior have anything to do with the RICO 20’s financial stake in climate policy? The vast majority of climate research dollars comes from the very agencies whose power, prestige, budgets, and/or staff would increase dramatically in a carbon-constrained world. Conversely, the agencies’ power and importance might decline in a more skeptical political climate.

RICO 20 Ringleader Jagdish Shukla, a professor at George Mason University, has been a longtime beneficiary of agency-administered, taxpayer-funded largesse. Shukla, his wife, and daughter reportedly received $900,000 in 2014 alone from GMU and federal grants to the Institute for Global Environment and Society (IGES), an organization he founded and directs.

That however appears to be just the tip of an iceberg. IGES reportedly received $63 million in federal grants since 2001, accounting for 98% of its budget. Five other signers of the RICO 20 letter are also GMU professors, three signers teach at Columbia University, two at the University of Maryland, and two at Florida State. A pretty cozy affair. If planned in cahoots with their funders, it might even be called a conspiracy. My CEI colleague Christopher Horner has filed requests for public records with the various universities to obtain the signers’ statements of economic interest.

Simple logic suggests what that interest is. House Science Chairman Lamar Smith on October 1 wrote a letter to Professor Shukla, which states:

IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.

Criminalizing policy differences is a bad idea. By their own criteria, however, the RICO 20 are ripe for a RICO investigation. Prosecutors in such a case would ask: “How much money did you receive in federal grants while you knowingly deceived Congress and the public about the perils of restricting global access to affordable energy?”

Note: shortly after publication, at the request of the author, paragraph 5 and the second to last paragraph had a text formatting change applied to indicate they were quotes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 1:27 pm

On moral grounds I would love to see the RICO 20 eat their own medicine.
But ethically, I just hope they are charged with fraud/embezzlement/etc, without any attachment to the scientific subject matter.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 8:07 pm

Shukla and the RICO was brought up on Fox news this evening on O’Reilly. Not as much as I would have liked to see as far as details, but it was stated that some AGWer academics attempted to silence Skeptics by asking U.S. Attorney General to prosecute skeptics under RICO… A violation of First Amendment rights. It seems that even the Supposed Fair and balanced news can’t get it right and wont bother to research some of the science on AGW and it’s quackery. They just half way accept it because they have the MSM retardation of “it’s out there so maybe it has some truth to it, otherwise people wouldn’t be covering it” problem.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 15, 2015 10:08 pm

Even here we have many scientists who dispute if CO2 is even capable of warming the atmosphere at all. The debates between the two camps of physics experts on this topic leave me wondering who to belive and what to think.
Similarly, those with little or no expertise in the hard sciences can hardly be blamed for not knowing exactly what t think when so many seemingly reputable scientists claim assert to tenets of CAGW and “climate change”.
The disinformation campaign is sophisticated and widespread.
The failure of other scientists to speak out loudly, or even at all in many cases, makes it even more difficult for many “regular people”, media types included, to discern the breadth of the deception.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 16, 2015 4:18 am

Don’t expect O’Really? to get anything right. He’s a narcissist of the highest order and would never let facts get in the way of advancing his own self.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 16, 2015 7:36 am

At least they are willing to stand up for our right to speak and disagree. That’s something. It also starts a discussion, and begs the question “why are they trying so hard to silence them”. This is why we never stomped down on the 9-11 truthers or moon hoaxers. Quashing them validates them.
Of course, that doesn’t always work. It pains and infuriates me that anti-vaccine fearmongerers who have caused real, known deaths get more respect and airtime than those who disagree with a political position on climate change.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 18, 2015 11:44 am

Your comment on O’Reilly is interesting.
I was just happy that his program gave some exposure to the issue even though it was quite short. If enough sent e mails to hopefully the issue would get better and more complete coverage.
If he got 100 emails it might stimulate a follow up on his program. I suggest everyone send him an e mail to . I already did.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 16, 2015 11:09 am

Bob, I didn’t think this needed explicit clarification but judging from some comments, it does. I am 100% opposed to criminalizing policy differences and scientific disputes. My purpose in this post, as you put it, is to give the RICO 20 a dose of their own medicine, to show that they fall to their own critique, that they are prima facie guilty under their own “racketeering” criteria, that they so lack self-awareness (or are so arrogant) they don’t know (or don’t care) how easy it is to hoist them on their own petard.
If Shukla amassed portions of his “Gold” unlawfully, I assume that would be prosecuted under statutes other than RICO.
My larger point, of course, is that the RICO 20 (and the global warming movement generally) misinform the public by ignoring the potentially very serious risks associated with the policies they advocate. Hawking risk-free remedies is what quacks do. The RICO 20 pose as honest brokers, objective researchers simply presenting “the science.” In fact, they are partisans with a massive economic interest in the policies they promote whose downside risks they hide or deny.

October 15, 2015 1:41 pm

Reblogged this on Mbafn's Blog and commented:
From the department of “I look after my own back (pocket) Jack”…. Even the most notorious scam artist are not this bold!!

October 15, 2015 1:41 pm

What is that old saying?… Oh yes … “The chicken who clucks the loudest, laid the egg.”

October 15, 2015 1:43 pm

As a drug rep, I routinely talk about efficacy of medicines AND side effects. The story has to be balanced and the sales pitch has to be honest. True, there are some cowboys in the my industry and like this group of 20, time will drum them out and new standards of ethical behaviour will be set.

Reply to  Craig
October 16, 2015 11:30 am

Thanks Craig. I am always taken aback how much of the TV ads for pharmaceuticals is devoted to describing all the ways the drug can wreck your life and even kill you. Such balance or truth in advertising is not required in political speech, nor should it be, because policymaking is an adversarial process, and we rely on competition to sort out rival claims. But the RICO 20 pretend to be honest brokers of objective science, which means they ask to be held to a higher standard and should present both sides of the risk ledger. Instead, they hype climate risk, ignore or deny climate policy risk, and seek to use the coercive power of the state to silence competitors who can challenge their narrative and present the other side of the risk equation. Shameful.

October 15, 2015 1:44 pm

Well, Holdren does need to be investigated. That much is clear.

October 15, 2015 1:52 pm

Another nice factual argument in support of fossil fuels.
Nobody still thinks that facts will have any impact on the Global Warming debate. The debate is not factual, it is ideological.
The article title asks a loaded question, intimating criminal activity. You need to put out some facts to support that intimation, or not make it. There were no such facts addressing that question in the article. That was a weak effort.
Assertions of wrongdoing should not be made without supporting evidence.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  TonyL
October 15, 2015 2:06 pm

Should the author have re-iterated all the facts instead of using links in the article? By assuming that most readers would be familiar with the story, he saved us time.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 2:26 pm

Sorry I was not clear. They made a ton of money, true enough. That in itself is evidence they were skillful at the grantsmanship game, and nothing more. We all know the AGW program has been fat with cash for a long time, and is the place to be for big funding. They may even been cozy with people within the funding agencies. That is still not a crime, these research communities are small little worlds, where everybody knows everybody else.
IF: If somebody at one of the granting agencies was getting a payment from one of the funded institutes, for example, that would be worth writing about.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Rob Morrow
October 15, 2015 3:17 pm

Being skillful at the grantsmanship game and breaking the rules of the game are not the same thing.
Double-dipping is illegal. Appropriating $100k of grant money for your nepotic charity, I assume, is illegal. What’s not worth writing about?

Reply to  TonyL
October 15, 2015 3:06 pm

TonyL, there is wrongdoing. (1) IGES is a 503c untaxed charity subsisting on federal funding grants, prohibited from engaging in political advocacy such as the letter it hosted.
(2) shukla personally double dipped tomthe tune of millions over years, in direct violation of the NSF 2/9 policy. See climate audit for an explanation. And, in 2014 send a $100,000 comtribution (out of federal grant money) to a family charitynin India run by his brother. Misappropriation.
(3) As a GMU professor, he is an employee of the state of Virginia. He has improperly filed several Virginia conflict disclosure forms, by not disclosing his sole ownership interest in IGES, nor thatnhe personally benefitted $300,000 from that conflict. That is a criminal violation of the relevant Virginia statute. Again, McIntyre provides interesting indelible details.
Shukla has gotten caught red handed. # 2 also puts GMU at risk of losing all NSF grant funding for a period of years, not just that to IGES.

Reply to  ristvan
October 15, 2015 6:45 pm

Thank You.
Exactly the sort of hard facts I had in mind.

Reply to  ristvan
October 16, 2015 4:57 am

IGES, Inc. is (was?) specifically a 501( c )3 tax-exempt organization and according to the IRS is

…absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

However, it is unlikely that sending the RICO20 letter would violate that prohibition since President Obama is not a candidate for elective public office.
In addition, the IRS prohibition would not extend to co-signers who were not IGES employees. Bringing up the RICO conspiracy angle on this scandal is a nice media “hook” but IMO clouds the more important policy issue that Marlo concisely pointed out:

Only snake oil salesmen peddle risk-free remedies. Yet our climate physicians carry on as if nothing could possibly go wrong with a global treaty putting politicians and bureaucrats in charge of planning the world’s energy future.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  TonyL
October 15, 2015 3:11 pm

Perhaps the problem lies in the culture of corruption which NSF has established over the last 20 for more years. Reading the comments of Mr. Verardo in the “Shukla’s Gold” discussion at Climate Audit, one has the impression of a bureaucrat just doing the best he can as he balances the needs of public and research scientist:

I deal with a lot of legacy and cultural issues that have to be dealt with but not catered to. Trying to balance the interests of the public who fund the research with those of the researchers who conduct the research requires empathy towards the rights and perspectives of both groups. NSF does not view the projects we fund and the data that is created as our own – we don’t do the research. The Agency was not set up under law to do research but rather to invest in research on behalf of the American people. That situation means we have to balance public and private interests, which means this is, by necessity, an ongoing and evolving discussion.

To be fair, if you have a trough out behind the Congressional “Restaurant”, a sty full of “researchers”, and a bringer of swill, one can scarcely blame the drove which comes running to the sound of “Sooo-oo-oo-eeeee, and whose swinish hearts race at the splashing sound of that liquid wealth hitting the trough along with the excited snorts and grunts of other hogs nosing each other aside to get their heads into the mush. Who is to blame, moreover, if the bringer of swill has been conditioned to give double-helpings when the cannier of his boarish charges lifts a dainty foreleg to scrape a few times against the trough-side, saying, in effect, “We know the secret scraping sound which summons you down from your kitchens. Now, upend those buckets or you will force us to use our voices, and we will scream to the heavens, weee, weee… The sky is falling and behold how it falleth even as we snort our warnings… On your be it if the heavens falls this very night! FEED MEEEEEE!!!”)
I hope this is not putting too fine a point on the matter. No one to blame. Move along.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 15, 2015 3:41 pm

Loved this, Bill.
No individual is to blame for corruption. Agreed. No single hog or sow is to blame for swine flu either. One can’t just move along though; must test the herd and cull the infected.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
October 15, 2015 7:00 pm

“legacy and cultural issues”
“Trying to balance the interests”
I do so love it when bureaucrats are “balancing interests”
“NSF does not view the projects we fund and the data that is created as our own”
Been on a NSF or NOAA grant myself, back in the day. I had to sign tons of paperwork, some of which was to guarantee that I understood that all research, results, and data belonged to the taxpayer. I also had a legal obligation to turn over any and all data to any American citizen who wanted to see it. There was no “balancing interests”.
Someone with more recent experience could respond and confirm if this is still the way it is, or maybe the rules are different for ClimateScience! research.

Reply to  TonyL
October 15, 2015 10:14 pm

“Nobody still thinks that facts will have any impact on the Global Warming debate.”
Perhaps it may be a good idea to speak for oneself when making declarative statements in absolute terms about an open ended question.
You can count me out of your “nobody” group.
I do hope that at some point the weight of actual facts will become overwhelming, and that actual facts will be instrumental in straightening out the mess that has resulted from the decades of this hooey being foisted on the world.

George Tetley
Reply to  Menicholas
October 16, 2015 2:38 am

Tony L.
you have lost the plot !!
Please tell me are we talking about ,GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE ???

Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2015 7:42 am

I’ve mentioned this before. Anytime that y’all do articles on this, you need to either state their criminal activity outright or put links back to articles that do in the post-script (for background).
However, even given that, the Racketeering angle isn’t going to slide. While I appreciate the irony it would be if true, there is simply no evidence that this was a conspiracy to defraud or extort. Just one man skimming off the top in plain corruption.

Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2015 11:31 am

I respectfully disagree, Tony. This wonderful Web site would serve no purpose if facts have no impact. The success of this Web site in building and informing the skeptic movement and generating push back in both the scientific and policy debates is conclusive proof (to me, anyway) that facts matter.

Michael Cox
Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2015 2:22 pm

TonyL, et al., the point of the article seemed to me not an accusatory statement, but rather that people who seek to sic the DOJ on someone using an overly broad law, should first evaluate how they will look in the reflection of that particular mirror. People in glass houses and such.

October 15, 2015 2:02 pm

Climate Science(UNEP, UNFCCC, and IPCC has become and always been Cultural marxism?

Reply to  Jon
October 15, 2015 2:38 pm

I don’t see that sentence needing a question mark to end it. (just sayin’)

October 15, 2015 2:06 pm

No one is home, they are all in Paris scouting restaurants, art, and entertainment with the grant money.

Reply to  Resourceguy
October 15, 2015 2:32 pm

Paris has nice art…As a consequence of imperialism. Ripped off is another way of saying it. Mark Twain had unkind things to say about the French. He figured: on the family tree of humanity; they were some what lower than the Cherokee during the period when those indigenous people where massacring homesteaders in the pay of the British! Tony L nobody is arguing for fossil fuel they are arguing for sensible energy policy!

Reply to  Resourceguy
October 15, 2015 8:13 pm

Especially Hillary, who would S**k a ghonorrhea/syphillitic, genital wart infested member if that was what it took her to become president. Along with all the other whorish, lying BS she thinks is okay to do as an elite.

Reply to  Resourceguy
October 15, 2015 9:35 pm

And that ain’t the half of it.

Reply to  Resourceguy
October 16, 2015 8:01 pm

Dahlquist, I think maybe she did draw the line above prostituting herself in that manner long, long ago … that’s one reason why Bill got himself in trouble. Not saying that she wouldn’t redraw that line now or in the future.

Reply to  Resourceguy
October 17, 2015 7:05 pm

DonM … she didn’t so much as cross the the that line she drew but rather has walked around it to the other side of it!

October 15, 2015 2:31 pm

Thank you for concise article!
I would have gone ahead and listed the deaths from water and sewer contamination since the energy to drive those systems is being intentionally withheld from the poorest.

Reply to  empiresentry
October 15, 2015 3:17 pm

Likewise, when you see the claims of ‘possible deaths due to burning fossil fuels’ it is also wise to factor in possible deaths due to not burning them

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 15, 2015 5:25 pm

It is simple enough to calculate the death rates by not burning fossil fuels by comparing life expediencies and fossil fuel emissions.
What you will find is that CO2 is the only toxin pollutant in all of history where the more you produce, the longer the population survives.
Unless of course you consider that water is also a toxic pollutant, as is oxygen, because they both are toxic in large enough quantities, and clouds and plants produce them in large quantities with very little we can do about it.
Maybe the EPA can put a tax on rain in the Pacific North West, say from October through February, and cut down on the serious rise in mildew poisonings and SADS.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 15, 2015 5:39 pm

factor in possible deaths due to not burning them
57 million extra deaths per year.
see: ferdberple October 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm below

Reply to  empiresentry
October 16, 2015 11:36 am

Yes, energy poverty is literally lethal. Alex Epstein has many examples in his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

October 15, 2015 2:31 pm

The intimation aspect of the letter by the ‘RICO 20’ looks like a racket to me, where a ‘racket’ is “a dishonest scheme, trick, business, activity, etc.”.
They did it intentionally, they look malicious.

Reply to  John Whitman
October 15, 2015 3:12 pm

Indeed. Intimation used as intimidation.

Barry L.
October 15, 2015 2:35 pm

This seems to me to be a text book example of Psychological Projection:

Reply to  Barry L.
October 15, 2015 6:48 pm

Psychological Projection has been the norm of the left for too many years to even count. It has manifest itself within the “climate change community”.
Psychological Projection may very well be a sign of serious deep rooted psychological problems of the progressive left. I’ve been watching it for over 15 years. Maybe 25.

Reply to  Barry L.
October 15, 2015 7:34 pm

Barry, Eyesonu,
Agree 100%.
I have observed, studied and commented on the same thing, in many aspects, on many forums, and many topics.
My only real question or doubt is if it is in any way deliberate, or if it is indeed entirely subconscious…i.e. true psychological projection.
I strongly suspect it is, but some niggling doubt lingers.
It seems too far too obvious for intelligent people to not be aware of.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 16, 2015 9:12 am

I agree with you as to being intentional. But in trying to be politically correct I try to express the issue as that they are suffering from a form of mental illness rather than being fraudulent.

October 15, 2015 2:52 pm

“…requesting a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.””

I do hope to be included in these charges. I am a supporter of the fossil fuel industry.
On an average day, I support the fossil fuel industry during my entire waking hours in the following manner:
1. I purchase gasoline and drive any distance and any direction, and for any purpose I require, asking only that the bureaucrats and politicians not interfere in this beneficial economic exchange, and desiring that the state government be required to list its fees and taxes on every gallon of gasoline and diesel
2. I wear clothes that are not cotton, do not wrinkle, and do not fade
3. I use soaps and detergents to kill bacteria and keep a clean living space
4. I use petroleum products in the form of plastics and synthetic rubbers, with special mention of the computer and plastic keyboard
5. I use products which have been shipped by truck across the country, point to point, in a timely manner
6. We work and have worked in the trucking industry for over two decades
7. We use iron, steel and other alloy products routinely and daily, which cannot be produced without stable, high temperature, energy intensive processes
8. We rely on the inexpensive and portable building material cement, another high temperature/energy intensive product, for buildings, drainage, sewer treatment, and clean water supply
9. We purchase conventionally grown agricultural and dairy products which provide inexpensive, safe food and the most widely varied diet any country has ever achieved in history
10. Our interior walls are made of sheetrock. “Gypsum produced as a byproduct of the flue-gas desulfurization process at electric power plants provides an economical, environmentally sound raw material for making high-quality gypsum board.”
11. We could examine the properties of matter and energy all day. If you can unlock your Big Baby Boomer lips from Darwin and Einstein for a moment, I will tell you what real engineers, inventors and scientists have done in agriculture, transportation, and all other applied fields.
So please, I ask to be implicated in supporting fossil fuel industries, and called to witness. I’ll by in and out all day, but I’ll try to get back to you.

Reply to  Zeke
October 15, 2015 7:36 pm

Plus about ten bajillion.

DD More
Reply to  Zeke
October 15, 2015 8:19 pm

But Zeke, did you see the gun being held to your head to buy / use the products on your list? Or was the gun held by people trying to stop you from using?

Reply to  DD More
October 15, 2015 8:47 pm
George Tetley
Reply to  Zeke
October 16, 2015 3:04 am

Wonderful Zeke, if you go take the 10,000 truckloads of physical evidence with you, The 100 year lawsuit that scammed $83,000,000 would not cover the RICO 20’s legal fees

October 15, 2015 2:58 pm

Oh oh oh RICO…

David Ball
October 15, 2015 3:23 pm
October 15, 2015 4:29 pm

What the Shukla cabal has done is classic projection – accusing others of doing what they have been doing for years. We see it in the political wars all the time. Oh wait, this is a political war. Cheers –

Reply to  agimarc
October 16, 2015 9:27 am

classical projection. it’s the modern pandemic of the left.

October 15, 2015 4:34 pm

In St. Louis, the commercial would say “Your vintage 1990 climate theory just got smashed into by a new fact, driven by an old skeptic. Uh Oh… better get RICO!

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 15, 2015 7:37 pm

In Philly I used to say…My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma.

Gary Pearse
October 15, 2015 4:35 pm

So, Mr. Lewis, is there a case or not? We’ve been treated to all manner of apparent malfeasance from this group and many other groups and individuals. I thought the law was clearer than it appears to be. A goodly measure of the climate industry is at least unethical and what of the NSF, NASA and NOAA, the guys feeding the swine. Can’t we get a look at the rules and guidelines for supplying all this largess?
In another thread here yesterday ‘scientists’ braying about everything dying from acid and heat in the oceans, claim to have reviewed 652!!! experiments pointing to this result. Number 1, we read a couple of months ago that a review of ocean acid experiments found that almost all of them were methodologically unfit for purpose. Number 2, who in hell has funded 652 acidification experiments that all say the same thing! Who and why were all the hockey sticks funded using the same “library footage” of proxies? Who and why were hundreds of polar bear doom studies funded and largely cooked.
Can’t someone make a citizen’s arrest or something? Call in the Auditor General, or the FBI, or any other of the dozens of watchdog agencies that seem to be on the Gov payroll? They’ve filled jails with a surprising number of innocent people and they let the white collar gangsters in universities walk. This is racketeering, this is fraud, this is stealing, this is conspiracy, nepotism, insider trading, falsification of documents, …..Can’t they get at least one of the thousands of these artists?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 11:38 am

Gary, see my responses to Bob and Craig above.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 1:48 pm

Gary – This is the New Age of Scientific Research, where funding is granted to produce those studies that self-enforce each other and the ‘Grand Consensus’ – that the IPCC then utilizes to perpetuate this entire edifice of cards. As I have said in past posts, it is Science-Fiction come to life.
Interesting times we live in, what?

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
October 18, 2015 10:22 am

It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
– Mark Twain

October 15, 2015 5:36 pm

Nobody knows how developing countries could conquer poverty over the next 35 years while reducing fossil fuel consumption 35% to 48% below current levels.
the graph of CO2 emissions and life expectancy shows that the average person would only live to 50 under those conditions instead of 70. Assuming a 10 billion person population in the future, that would be (1/50 * 10 billion) – (1/70 * 10 billion) = 57 million excess deaths per year.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 16, 2015 11:47 am

Ferdberple, prediction is hard, especially about the future! What the CO2 emissions in the graph track is the whole process of development supported by fossil energy. The technologies already invented and deployed would not just vanish because governments impose emission cuts. I expect there would be significant casualties from politically-imposed draconian cuts in fossil fuel consumption, but all body count estimates are highly speculative and would almost certainly turn out to be wrong.

October 15, 2015 5:43 pm

actually, to be precise, in keeping with Climate Science accuracy, the number of deaths PER YEAR in the future by restricting access to fossil fuels will be: 57,142,857.14. Especially important is the 0.14.

October 15, 2015 6:04 pm

It seems like these people should be RICO prosecuted for “knowingly deceiving the American people about the risks of climate change, in order to misdirect America’s response to climate change.”

Reply to  Tom
October 16, 2015 11:54 am

Well said in the sense that turnabout is fair play. Just to be clear though, I strongly oppose using RICO to influence policy or science debates. See my replies to Bob and Craig above.

Steve Oregon
October 15, 2015 6:23 pm

…..”The RICO 20—and indeed all educated climate campaigners—have to know several key facts they never mention in their advocacy campaigns:”
No they don’t.
In fact I believe they choose to be purposefully obtuse in every way that suits them.
Look deep into their eyes.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
October 16, 2015 12:09 pm

Again, my aim was to show that the RICO 20 fall to their own critique. They assume (pretend) that “fossil fuel companies and their allies” must know that climate change is as bad as the RICO 20 say it is. The key facts I mention are more evident than the climate change impact assessments touted by climate campaigners. For example, who doesn’t know that pharmaceuticals can have serious, even lethal, side effects, and that any physician who pretends otherwise is a quack? Or consider this. Many, perhaps all, of the RICO 20 are highly trained in mathematics. How could they not know that achieving the EU’s 60-by-50 emission reduction target could compel developing countries, where billions still languish in energy poverty, to make draconian cutbacks in their current consumption of fossil fuels? That’s a conclusion of simple arithmetic.

October 15, 2015 7:19 pm

I had seen not one whisper of the PrisonGate story in the national media, not in print, or on the air.
I wrote some emails, notably to Bill O’Reilly, hoping he might pick up the story and at least mention it.
I wrote a post on Climate Audit mentioning I had done so, and wondering if anyone else had done likewise.
My post was deleted after about a day, no explanation or comment, just gone. Ditto with one or two more I had written.
I for one will never comment there again.
I have no idea why it would be deleted.
(I did not tell any jokes, BTW)
Tonight Bill did talk about the story, in a short discussion with Stuart Varney during a segment called “Varney’s Villains”, and mentioned Shukla, along with the twenty. A picture of Shukla was shown, and the two recounted the effort to silence critics of a scientific hypothesis using the courts and the RICO laws.
The twenty are named in a post on his website
This is, to date, the first I have seen the story mentioned in any prominent way.
The Factor is the top rated show in all of cable news. Between 2.1 and 3.2 million people view the show on the prime time airing, and more during two later airings and some weekend airings.
My guess is that this is the most people who have been informed of this at once.
It is know that many prominent politicians (including the President)watch or are informed of what is discussed, and other news personalities watch the show and pick up stories covered by O’Reilly.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 15, 2015 7:41 pm

Note: PrisonGate = Shukla’s Gold, The Rico Twenty, or whatever else anyone wants to call it.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 16, 2015 5:38 am


Reply to  Menicholas
October 16, 2015 5:45 am

Okay Ric, RICOchet it is.
And here’s to hoping it does!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Menicholas
October 16, 2015 3:02 am

Your post at Climate Audit must have been impolite, ad hom, in bad taste, libelous or something that overweighed what you hoped to communicate. Climate Audit doesn’t remove controversial posts.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 5:30 am

It was none of those things, I promise you.
It was in no way distasteful or any of those other things.
I read his policy, and made a short and to the point comment about what I had done.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 5:33 am

Since he just deletes with no comment, it would be difficult to know how many are deleted, or why, or when, or even if.
They are just gone.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 17, 2015 10:46 pm

McIntyre “cleans up” his blog. He just goes through and deletes posts. They call it the Zamboni.
It’s routine and has happened to me many times. If you aren’t commenting substantively on the subject matter of the post, it is more likely to happen.
Don’t get offended by it. Just because he deleted your post doesn’t mean he has anything against you or that you did anything wrong.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 20, 2015 9:12 am

“Menicholas”, that you see your post in a blog after commanding posting does not mean that it actually was posted.
One scenario is that a moderator did not accept it, which is what you claim.
Another is the perfectness of software – NOT. (WordPress has defects.)
Anthony and Stephen and helpers are good at noting when a post has been sliced.
Stephen tries to keep a thread on the topic of the thread so has little tolerance for veering.

October 15, 2015 7:21 pm

For an economist, the two most important lines on the graph are the link between GDP and CO2. Makes one wonder. If we reduce CO2, does GDP decline? Or better put, if we reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, does GDP decline?
Absent an energy miracle, yes it does.

October 15, 2015 7:23 pm

I have some trouble with the lead photograph on this post. The caption seems to list the signatories to the letter that was sent to Washington, in the order signed.
The photo appears to be of all the signatories. J Shukla is there, of course, but I’m not sure about the others.
Ah – I think the photo comes from which has this caption:

Would-be RICO G-men David Straus and Paul Dirmeyer (first and second from left, back row), Jagadish Shukla and Paul Schopf (third and fourth from left, front row), and Barry Klinger (far right, front row).

I haven’t found the photo at the IGES site, it would be nice to know exactly what it is, but I doubt it’s all signatories but probably includes some people who would be annoyed it’s used here.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 15, 2015 7:50 pm

agreed and I have been looking around
I think (don’t know) who some are from other photos – Columbia Earth “Sciences” (I will not due that outfit) but, not sure and that has bothered me – we should know

October 15, 2015 7:44 pm

Ah, here it is:
The caption reads:

Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies faculty: Front row: Professors Natalie Burls, Kathleen Pegion, Jagadish Shukla, Paul Schopf, Long Chiu, Cristiana Stan and Barry Klinger. Back row: Professors David Straus, Paul Dirmeyer, Bohua Huang, James Kinter, Timothy DelSole, Edwin Schneider and Brian Doty.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 15, 2015 7:53 pm

bingo and thanks
I believe we should be accurate and precise

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 18, 2015 5:16 am

Then there are people on this picture which has not signed the RICO letter. I think the photo should be removed from the post. Innocent people should not be burdened with any association at all to the disgraceful RICO letter.

David Ball
October 15, 2015 8:06 pm

What bothers me the most is these folks accuse skeptics of being in the payroll of big oil or some such bullsh**t, and they themselves line their pockets with ill gotten gains.
I can only speak for what I know personally, but I suspect that most skeptics are eeking out a living asking only for honest science. No wads of dough laying around Dr, Ball’s house, or I suspect Ant*ny’s either, or Bob Tisdale’s, or Dr. Roy Spencer’s, or Willis Eschenbach’s, or Richard Lindezen’s.You see where I am going with this?
Help Ant*ny out. Hit the donate button if you are able.

October 15, 2015 8:35 pm

” what industrial and developing countries must do to reduce global CO2 emissions 60% below 2010 levels by 2050″. The idea that emissions reduction will have an impact on warming rates is not supported by the data from 1850 to 2014.

October 15, 2015 8:40 pm

The world map (figure 3) showing energy poverty is important because most of these 3.6 billion people have no access to Internet. They don’t know what is being decided about them in COP21 in Paris or elsewhere and therefore cannot protest. Even if the knew or understood, they couldn’t express themselves in English on the Net. They do want reliable electricity for sure.
This who CO2 emission reduction debate is very one sided also because of this.

Reply to  AntonyIndia
October 16, 2015 12:53 pm

Good point, and one I’ve not seen elsewhere. Warming advocates say don’t worry, be happy, the USA and other industrial countries will pay you $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate assistance and, perhaps, many billions more in “reparations and damages” funds. Alas, climate aid is more likely to be another dependency trap than a real stimulus to self-sustaining economic growth.

Reply to  marlolewisjr
October 16, 2015 1:03 pm

And that’s assuming industrial nations will actually pony up that much money. Don’t bet on it!

Science or Fiction
Reply to  AntonyIndia
October 18, 2015 9:21 am

Good Point. The precautionary principle should urge United Nations to suspend actions based on their climate theory. More expensive energy sources is bound to increase general costs by a mechanism called cost push inflation caused by supply side cost increase (e.g. energy) . Well paid bureaucrats, popes and presidents will not be affected – poor people will. There is an enormous amount of people in the world who will be negatively affected by increased energy costs and cost increases in general.
“The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public … , in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.” (Wikipedia)
By its charter United Nations is supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
By their climate theory and actions thereof, United Nations is way out of line with their intended purpose. United Nations bases their recommended actions on the recommendations by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The fundamental flaw is that IPCC is based on unscientific principles and also biased by its principles.
(ref. Principles governing IPCC work):
The following is a reasonable interpretation of Paragraph 1:
“The panel shall concentrate its activities on actions in support of stabilizing the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
Hence, paragraph 1 demonstrates that IPCC is biased by design.
Paragraph 10 :
“In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus”
Obviously, consensus is a very central value for the Panel. This can be regarded as a dangerous value to endorse – groupthink is a well known cause of unsound decisions – and argument by consensus is a well known logical fallacy. Hence, to strive for consensus is a very unscientific approach.
United Nations should cease acting in breach with its charter on the basis of a flawed climate theory.

October 15, 2015 9:52 pm

How else are a bunch of brain-dead simpletons going to extract millions from the public purse.
You have to give them some credit, they found a niche (and a niche for the niece) for brain-dead simpletons.
And the public purse was willing to oblige.
Invent a bogus game-changing wind-turbine, that won’t really work,
And apply for a grant from the DOE.
They will fall for any old crap.
Give them a number and ask them to write lots of zeroes after it.

October 15, 2015 10:46 pm

‘Pre-industrial’ CO2 levels (i.e. prior to 1750AD) were 280 molecules in a million (ppm) of all atmospheric gases (water vapour excluded).
Currently, we have 401 ppm of CO2.
That’s a 43% increase in CO2.
Looked at another way, currently we have 121 CO2 molecules per million more in the atmosphere today.
Despite this, all the fuss is about fraction of a degree increases.
Where is the dangerous warming we’ve heard so much about?

Reply to  Carbon500
October 16, 2015 1:14 am

So approximately 1 C02 molecule per 10,000 has caused nearly a degree or warming? That’s one powerful molecule!

Reply to  Ron
October 16, 2015 5:39 am

Ron, what evidence can you show demonstrating that every smidgen of any warming over the past 100+ years must necessarily be due to CO2 increasing?
Are you of the opinion that climate does not change, unless man does something to cause it?
Are you at all schooled in Earth history?

October 15, 2015 11:25 pm

Racketeering? Not sure about that, certainly it would seem they are all “feathering their nests” on grant money. Lets hope the all end up carping in their nests too.

October 15, 2015 11:43 pm

Every time I see this, I think of Jugdish from “Animal House”:- he’s the one in the middle…:

October 16, 2015 12:03 am

Written before the RICO20 issue emerged from the primordial ooze:
I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..
Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.
We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..
The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.
If serious funders are interested, please contact me through
Regards, Allan MacRae
Phil – please see my post of September 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I suggest that someone is going to sue these warmist fraudsters in the USA, probably using the civil RICO statutes.
Watch for it…
Best, Allan

David Cage
October 16, 2015 12:28 am

Surely altering data after the claim had been made that the science was beyond question has to be the most overt case of fraud possible. Either the science is beyond question so needs nothing whatever changed or the changes are honest but the original claim was clearly fraudulent.

October 16, 2015 12:48 am

Is Shukla now an American citizen , or still an Indian national? I failed to discover this from his cv.
If not it seems odd to me that a foreigner can orchestrate the arrest and imprisonment of distinguished US scientists like Spencer and Lindzen using US laws simply because he does not agree with their research.
At the very least it is rather bad manners when you are a guest in the country of said scientists.

Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 3:16 am

October 16, 2015 at 1:14 am
“So approximately 1 C02 molecule per 10,000 has caused nearly a degree or warming? That’s one powerful molecule!”
They do give water vapor a best supporting actor award, but that’s not the criticism I want to make. Ron and many others here keep hitting on the 1 molecule per 10,000 as an absurdly tiny level of CO2 to have an effect. Steve Mosher made a simple but eloquent comment on another thread that all skeptics should digest because looking foolish is not good business for a skeptic in this game. That insy winsy soupcon of a gas is more than enough to support the entire biosphere – life on earth!! Yes it is a very powerful molecule and we should simply argue that more is better than less.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 3:29 am

No! It’s ~3% of that 1 molecule in 10,000 that is DRIVING the change. Pure bunkum!

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 16, 2015 7:32 am

Gary: Look at the CO2 increase again as per my earlier post:
“Pre-industrial’ CO2 levels (i.e. prior to 1750AD) were 280 molecules in a million (ppm) of all atmospheric gases (water vapour excluded). Currently, we have 401 ppm of CO2. That’s a 43% increase in CO2.”
For me, that’s a strong case for saying that CO2 is not going to cause catastrophic man-made global warming. If a 43% increase hasn’t ratcheted up global temperatures to terrifying heights, why waste fortunes trying to ‘mitigate’ a non-existent threat?
For further interest, look at the world’s oldest temperature record, the Central England Temperature record or CET.
The annual average temperature in 1750 is given as 9.71C, and in 2014 it was 10.95. This hasn’t been a consistent rise;. in 2013 for example it was 9.61C.
In 1659 it was 8.87C, and in 2010 8.86C!
Yet, I repeat, CO2 has risen by 43% since 1750.
The UK isn’t ‘global’ nor is the CET record ‘global’, but as I always joke – come to the UK to escape doomsday!

October 16, 2015 5:07 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Feynmen was referring to NASA and the space shuttle, but his statement is universal:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Most all assertions related to green and sustainable are ignoring how nature works (the physical world and the nature of mankind). In the end, reality bites.
It won’t help to put those who disagree with you in prison (or worse). Nature doesn’t care. In the end, those who oppose fossil fuel will suffer. The more they get their way, the more they will have pain and sorrow.
In the end, we will go to nuclear, first fission, then fusion, but fusion is too far away to consider.
We must work to make our world better WITH fossil fuel, and we must stop demonizing carbon dioxide. It is good. It is an essential ingredient of life.

Esa-Matti Lilius
October 16, 2015 5:13 am

Menicholas wrote “Even here we have many scientists who dispute if CO2 is even capable of warming the atmosphere at all. The debates between the two camps of physics experts on this topic leave me wondering who to belive and what to think.”
can you give references where physicists show scientifically how CO2 warms atmosphere?

Reply to  Esa-Matti Lilius
October 16, 2015 5:51 am

I have no idea why my comment leads you to believe I am going to do a bunch of homework for you.
Or why you would suppose I keep a handy list of such references.

October 16, 2015 5:41 am


Esa-Matti Lilius
October 16, 2015 6:03 am

I would be satisfied with one

Esa-Matti Lilius
October 16, 2015 6:07 am

with “scientifically” I ment obeying laws of physics

Reply to  Esa-Matti Lilius
October 16, 2015 10:08 am

I think you entirely missed my point.
For one thing.
For another, if I knew of proof one way or the other, I would not be undecided on who to believe, would I?
My point is that among scientists there is discussion and disagreement.
Expecting those with no scientific background to automatically gravitate towards what skeptics are saying is expecting too much of them.

Reply to  menicholas
October 16, 2015 10:10 am

By the way, if you have proof of the opposite proposition, I would be happy to read it.
Not sure if you are aware of my position, or of my commitment to this subject.

Reply to  menicholas
October 16, 2015 10:16 am

Even among skeptical scientists, there is disagreement. On some rather fundamental issues.
A layperson wading into this morass can be forgiven for not knowing instantly who to believe.

Esa-Matti Lilius
Reply to  menicholas
October 16, 2015 12:56 pm

Menicholas:I do not have a slightest idea of your position. I have the highest university degree in physical chemistry although from nearly 50 years ago. According to my classical text books I have no difficulties to understand that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere. Maybe my knowledge is old – fashioned. That’s why I asked. What I got? Very unpolite answer with no substance. I thought this happens only on alarmist pages.

Reply to  Esa-Matti Lilius
October 17, 2015 9:05 am

Hello Esa-Matti,
We have a full-scale test of the hypothesis occurring right now on this planet – I suggest that is more meaningful and more accurate than the physical arguments. While fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 both increased strongly since about the 1940’s, global temperatures decreased from ~1940 to ~1975, increased to ~2000 and has been flat since – so there is a negative correlation of temperature with CO2, a positive one, and a zero one.
The evidence suggests that near-zero is the correct answer – CO2 is NOT significant driver of global temperatures. The alleged global warming crisis does not exist.
Furthermore, ple3ase note that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and consider the implications of this reality.
A few more thoughts below: Climate heresy now, but conventional wisdom in 10-20 years.
Regards, Allan 🙂
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Esa-Matti Lilius
Reply to  Allan MacRae
October 18, 2015 4:32 am

Allan, thank you very much for your kind reply. Yes, I am aware of all those (non)relations between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

Reply to  Esa-Matti Lilius
October 17, 2015 7:50 pm

Impolite, or matter of fact? I said nothing rude.
I am sort of thinking that perhaps English is not your first language.
For the record, I also studied physical chemistry, and have no proof that CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
Since I have no such proof, how can I post links?
Many assert that there is such an affect, and some dispute it.
Then again, in science, there is not really thought t be any way to prove a proposition, only to disprove it.
If CO2 goes up, and it also warms, it may be the CO2, or it may be something else.
But, as we have seen, CO2 has gone up rapidly for many years, and yet we have had no warming for going on 19 years now.
This does not prove that CO2 does not cause any warming though, since no one can know what would have happened if CO2 had remained stable.
I am still not sure why you thought I could prove, or show proof, of what you asked.
I was using the lack of agreement among experts on this point, as an example to illustrate something else entirely.
I am sorry if you have very thin skin. Lucky for you this is not a warmist site…they are not matter of fact…they are typically openly hostile.

Esa-Matti Lilius
Reply to  Menicholas
October 18, 2015 4:44 am

You are quite right, English is not my first language. Actually it is not even my second, which is German. It is obviously due to my poor English that I got the impression when you wrote “The debates between the two camps of physics experts on this topic leave me wondering who to belive and what to think” that there are written opinions based on solid physics of some physicists who think that CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. I did not ask any proof, just a reference. I do not know whwther this is correctly said in English.
But maybe there are not such papers. Maybe your sentence just meant that you have heard about such debates.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 18, 2015 10:48 am

You can read such debating here on a regular basis.
Many of the commenters post links to various studies.
The subject of radiative physics is not one that I feel I have any particular expertise in.

Reply to  Esa-Matti Lilius
October 17, 2015 7:55 pm

BTW, If I was less convivial than you may have preferred, perhaps it was because you seemed to be demanding that I post proof of a proposition that I had not asserted was true.

October 16, 2015 6:23 am

I suggest that the entire federal government is an organized criminal enterprise. Does anyone really believe that a billion dollar in “donations” given to elect a president for a $400,000/year job does not expect a payback from the government coffers. The imposition of the climate scam is just like the mafia getting into garbage business, another opportunity to steal.

Reply to  Billyjack
October 16, 2015 10:11 am

How about hundreds of billions in sports betting on people who make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars playing the game? Very good point sir.

October 17, 2015 8:28 pm

Fraud should be a crime for politicians and political activists the same as everybody else.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights