Bishop Hill Muck and brass
Sep 21, 2015 Greens ;)
There is much entertainment to be had this morning from the revelation that the ringleader of a notorious gang of climate scientists has been taking home as much as $750,000 per year from his climate activities. Professor Jagadish Shukla spearheaded last week's attempt to get the Obama administration to prosecute climate sceptics under racketeering laws. These new revelations make it look as if his real motivation was to protect his own income.
The news about Shukla is just the latest in a long line of stories showing that the loudest scaremongers in the Green blob are able to command extraordinary incomes. Lord Stern's speaking fees are one example, and another was last week's reminder that the chief scientist at the Met Office earns more than the Prime Minister.
Muck and brass, you might say.
Reader Comments (26)
There's every possibility that a change of incumbent in the White House might well lead to a far more wide-ranging RICO investigation than was originally contemplated. The Law is a two-edged sword, as a would-be Nobel Prize claimant is currently finding out.
This just adds one more piece of confirmation concerning what we know about the corruption endemic in the "climate change" scam.
"climate change" is a $multi-billion industry in the USA, so there must be thousands of corrupt individuals currently feeding at the trough and scared that the scam is coming to an end.
It amazed me that this RICO call was ever made. Think about the thought behind it.
If the Sceptics are losing they should be ignored.
If the Sceptics are winning then now is not the time to double down.
It was obvious that raising the stakes would lead to greater scrutiny of those engaged in lawfare. That's risky, even if you're a saint.
The only possible reason for this move that I can think of is that they fear that AGW will be denounced as "not dangerous" at Paris. And then the gravy train hits the buffers.
It must be panic.
Climate science is Greener than the Greenest snow, outside a pub at closing time. Pissitively possed on, by 97% of participants
In terms of racketeering, is there a difference between what he has been upto, and what he has accused others of doing under RICO laws?
"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". There was a lot of wisdom around in the old days.
Will climate scientists now be looking to amend historical legal precedents to prove they were right all along?
In climate science, nothing is set in stone, when it can be changed on a Tablet.
Sorry to disappoint you- troll comments and follow-ups removed.
Pretty sure discovery would be able to show that all wind turbine manufacturers knowingly create an ineffective solution to a known non-problem. RICO is a dangerous toy for the dogmatists to propose playing with. There's a part of me that wants to bring this on, because I'm confident that in the "global warming solution" arena we're dealing with nothing BUT racketeers.
But Judith Curry is absolutely right, RICO in "my paper versus your paper" absolutely is the death knell of science in every way possibly conceived.
In climate science, nothing is set in stone, when it can be changed on a Tablet. Sep 21, 2015 at 10:48 AM | golf charlie
That is true but I think this one nails it:
One of the things I love about ‘climate science’ is that must be the only field of study where:
Only the future is certain, the past is always changing. Peter Miller May 3, 2015 at 6:43 pm
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/uqs-denial-101x-putting-the-stink-in-distinction/#comment-1707106
That's often one of the great things about running a non-profit "charity". You have pay any spare money to yourself to make sure the organization makes no profit.
Being proved wrong all the time is very lucrative in this day and age.
Courts making judgements on science, it's the new way don't-you-know. Not just climate, medicine too.
http://www.trueactivist.com/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/
So the first name on the letter is profiting $750,000 a year.
The second name on the letter from 'climate scientists' is in fact someone who works in "Climate change communication" and "social marketing". He appears to be misrepresenting his academic credentials.
When I first read of this RICO letter, my reaction was that it is so often the least trustworthy who are the quickest to accuse others of their own behaviours.
"Follow the money"......
Climate Parasites.
Climate Parisites...
Climate Scum.
Climate Sewage.
Climate Aristocracy...
I personally do not care how much academics or political leaders are paid. The crucial measure is the net benefit of employing that person. The effect of climate scientists is hugely negative, regardless of the salary they are paid. On the other hand it would be worth rewarding any Civil Servant who successfully abolished all the renewables subsidies with an annual pension of eight figures. The bonus, expressed a percentage of the net economic impact, would still seem an insult compared to what they had achieved.
I was commenting over at the Toronto Star last week regarding the "Green Leap Forward" or whatever that was announced by the Usual Suspects (in the middle of a Canadian federal election, no less: everyone involved is either Green or NDP, i.e., Labour or left-wing Democrat).
One True Believer wanted to know why would anyone (on the warmist side) want to spend their entire careers on trying to tell us that the Apocalypse is around the corner if it wasn't...
He never did answer his own que$tion...
Punksta, thanks for that link. Very interesting.
"...that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles-containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science."
Organic local racketeers can be found at DeSmog where founder, John Lefebvre, guilty of laundering money from off shore gambling, supports PR spinmeister James Hoggan in flinging the green muck around while also acting with Hoggan as a director of the David Suzuki foundation.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--07-cr-0597/USA_v._Lawrence/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
Climate Science Wealthcare is a purely for profit, self interest group, set up to maintain climate scientists in the manner they want to be accustomed to.
Any attempt to damage CSW will be met with the full force of any law, deemed vaguely relevant, and all accusations of hypocrisy will be morphed into Computer Generated Proof of double standards by the accuser.
With the legal and financial support of the President of the USA, and the Pope's blessing, no force in heaven or on earth, can obstruct the powerful forces of greed and self interest.
no surprise , let us be honest given the poor acedmic standards of 'the Team' many would have a hard time getting a job selling fast food, CAGW has given them the 'golen ticket ' so of course they will defend it with all they got fo what else can they do.
Everyone always says there are too many lawyers, but no one ever says there are too many climate scientists!
Out of curiosity, I looked up Wikipedia to see how many scientists were listed under the term,"Climate scientists". The list was obviously out of date and incomplete, but I counted 232 names , a number of whom are well known sceptics. At the same site there is a list of "scientists who dispute the scientific consensus on global warming" (or some such). I counted some 66 names . This list is also out of date and incomplete.
But "The Science" is settled......
Herbert, to qualify as a climate scientist, all you need is a felt tip pen, the ability to draw lines which aren't straight, and the skill to write climate scientist on a T-shirt. Trainees are advised to take the T-shirt off first.
Everyone always says there are too many lawyers, but no one ever says there are too many climate scientists!
And now we're going to get ... too many climate lawyers.
Paul in Sweden, (Sep 21, 2015 at 12:00 PM),
That was a great quote! It reminded me of a gem in Richard Lindzen's presentation to the UK parliament:
“We may not be able to predict the future, but in climate ‘science,’ we also can’t predict the past.”