Bishop Hill Follow the money
Sep 28, 2015 Ethics There is a big story breaking at Climate Audit right now about the authors of the letter demanding that climate sceptics be put on trial, and in particular the instigator, Jagadish Shukla.
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.
Reader Comments (40)
Anyone would have thought that some people are making a lot of money out of global warming. Should legal action automatically follow outrageous claims in climate science as Shukla has been advocating? Maybe Shukla has a point after all.
Was the IPCC modelled on FIFA? Who chose Paris and why?
Shukla's comments should make Shukla himself subject to legal action.
oink oink.
I once had an argument whether climate scientists were well paid. I pointed out that as westerners they were amongst the highest earners in the world and that science paid better than many jobs (do you want fries with that). There was much outrage as they pointed out that bankers got much more money. Hmm, yes compared to top bankers and fund managers even Shukla isn't well paid but compared to the rest of us, it's a good band wagon to join.
In a rational age this would be a big deal.
But in the age of climate corruption, nothing is likely to be done except to blame those who dug up this sordid story.
" Hmm, yes compared to top bankers..."
At least a significant number of people want bankers, politicians and anyone else abusing public money in jail. Basically everyone knows money corrupts a large number of people and public money is the largest pot of all of easy money.
Big salary big tax bill.
Bish you,re an accountant
Lets hope Jagadish is not trying to squirrel it all away offshore.
So will Shukla publish his tax returns.
The top of the pyramid, i.e. Obama and federal agencies will probably do nothing, à la Peter H. Gleick. The very cynical might even wonder if that was why Shukla wrote to Obama calling for the use of RICO laws against skeptics with the temerity to disagree: If someone had rumbled him, it might gain him protection by publicly "calling out deniers" as Obama's edict requires.
On the other hand, many University administrations are very jealous of the overheads-cut they take from Federal grants. That's really what gets academics tenure, not excellence in research or teaching. If George Mason consider themselves short changed by his "non-profit" arrangements, and leery of the wider use of such scams, then the bureaucrats may take punitive action, pour encourager les autres.
Advocating the prosecution of people for disagreement over scientific matters should be causing outrage and furious condemnation from all directions. This is the kind of thinking that led to the Spanish Inquisition. If those who are sceptical of climate change alarmism are wrong then the correct way to deal with them is to prove it. Make your case alarmists and while you're at it prove that a modern industrial economy can be powered by solar panels and windmills. The reason that these people are advocating persecution is that they are unable to make their case. The most likely reason for that is that they are wrong.
To Dessle:
Definition: To fail to believe that money can influence beliefs in a financially beneficial manner.
Do the combined salaries of all 259 IPCC principals amount to more or less than what Exxon pays its CEO?
I am sure the former USSR had some penal colonies up in Siberia, that only used solar heating, even during the long dark winters. Nobody was ever heard complaining.
If Mr Putin can be persuaded, as a token gesture of World Peace, climate scientists could be encouraged, at gunpoint if necessary, to hold a 5yr Siberian conference, and any survivors could write a paper on the dangers of fossil fuels, and global warming.
They rake it up as they go along.
vvussell, I don't know the answer to your question. Do you?
How many times have the IPCC's Principals had their total earnings made available for anyone's scrutiny? That is their total earnings, because the IPCC does not officially pay, does it?
"Do the combined salaries of all 259 IPCC principals amount to more or less than what Exxon pays its CEO?"
What difference does it make?
Exxon has to deliver vauable product.
IPCC produces squiggly lines and hype.
And 259 principals? How many idiots does it actually take to do nothing?
Andrew
I struggle to find any admirable people in the climate alarm lobby. Some are merely shallow-thinking, or perhaps non-thinking opportunists. But this chap Shukla really seems to stink a bit with his millions and his RICO letter. Both, but especially the letter, make him worthy of detailed investigation of the kind that McIntyre has got underway. The harm that this lobby continues to do is dreadful, and any insights into why and how they do it will surely help bring to it an end.
John Shade, the very last thing that the IPCC need now, is for some of their top experts to be arrested by the FBI in Paris.
FIFA executives are so much more cooperative since some of them lost their authority over money that wasn't theirs.
Russell but we choose to buy and use what the CEO of Exxon is selling. Do we get the same freedom of choice over what the 259 IPCC principals are flogging?
As Nigel Calder neatly put it in The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) even his local council has a Climate Change™ officer, that there was a ‘huge tail’ of people recruited to the cause.
There are climate ‘research institutes’ and the like all over the developed world employing thousands of hangers-on.
Shukla and friends’ mistake was to draw attention to themselves.
vvussell well done for introducing the subject of Value For Money and the IPCC
I think the CEO of Exxon offers better value for money, than the entire budget of the IPCC.
Apart from climate scientists, has anyone ever benefitted from anything produced by the IPCC? The IPCC just provides lucrative employment opportunities, for people we never knew we needed. After 20 years of failing to prove why we do need them, their salaries depend more than ever on a few gullible world leaders.
It would be really embarrassing for the IPCC, if it turns out many of them are earning far more money than the very gullible world leaders, they now need to approve their extended and enhanced salaries and employment contracts.
Just because global temperatures have not risen in accordance with IPCC expert's predictions, does not mean that their salaries should not rise as they anticipate.
I am proud to be part of a group that made the above comments with the exception of Russell who stooped even lower than usual to make his crass contribution.
Dung, vvussell's contribution towards exposing climate science's fraudulent activities, certainly rises faster than global temperatures.
If ever Big Oil decide to write any of these fabled cheques, their double agents will expect double the money.
There's £5.8bn of wasted taxpayer funding to be fought over now, making this chickenfeed.
Do let us know if you go to work for Exxon so we can do some shorts.
Dammit, John Shade, you've set me thinking now.
I am pretty sure I can come up with one, given time. You will receive my answer, either on this thread, or another one. Eventually.
John Shade, I've done it: Roger Pielke Jr
OK, so he's one of the main sources for this story. And I'll admit he is only one of the Luke-alarmists, who has already been cast down into the sixth circle of Dante's hell.
But he's a person who picked up on reporting this story.
And he had previously said he was abandoning the whole [global-warming bollocks] thing as a result of the intimidation he received from hard-core believers because he had suggested that the proposed solutions to 'the problem' were sub-optimal.
I think he is admirable.
But please don't ask me to think of a second admirable person in the climate alarm lobby.
It's hard to believe this version of events from a denialist blogger website, so I'll wait for the in-depth expose in the forthcoming Panorama Special Report from the BBC.
Terminally innumerate readers , Caddy Charles included , will find that one Exxon CEO = $40,000,000 a year, nt including stock options, or roughly twice what the 259 IPCC boffins net .
Russell is one of those people who thinks that simply mentioning the word "Exxon" is all he has to do to make some sort of argument or other about climate. Rather like those painful leftie comedians who still believe that the audience will all fall about and applaud wildly if they say the magic word "Thatcher".
Grow up, Russell. Nobody with any brain gives a **** what the CEO of Exxon or any other company is paid. He gets it because he and his company are successful at producing a product that people want and need. The IPCC and in this particular discussion Shukla make no useful contribution at all to the sum of human happiness but are simply intent on feathering their nests at the expense of the taxpayer. Indeed, their contribution to humanity is net negative and they should be paying us.
If and when any of them succeed in turning a profit of $44 billion in one year come back and we can have this discussion again. Meanwhile stop making yourself look an idiot.
Russell is showing his true nature as a "Watermelon". Green on the outside, red inside.
Socialism, having repeatedly failed as a philosophy and at the ballot box has draped itself in green and using this as a guise to force the "workers paradise" on us.
Welcome to North Korea- the greenest country in the World.
Well obviously this contrasts directly with Willie Soon's remuneration package and thereby ends all possible inference that oil money influences policy any more than federal grant money. If anyone now mentions Soon then we counter with Shukla!
If this was from a private corporation (oh like say Exxon) that made it's money from selling useful stuff then it would not be any of our business. As a beneficiary of public funds though, someone from the funding agency could be asking how many engineers could be employed working on alternative energies for the same money, rather than on one rather insignificant meteorologist and his family, whose main contribution - like all alarmists - has been to criminally underestimate the role of natural variation on climate in order to promote an energy austerity policy that his own remuneration provides an adequate cushion from. While the alarmists plead that we all need to change our lifestyles, as usual it turns out that some animals are more equal than others.
Russel did the CEO of Exxon make a deal with Iran and Russia and Hezbollah in Lebanon to keep the President Assad in power in Syria despite his atrocities and in return Russia and Iran that will take the fight to the Evil Islamic State and not American NATO ground troops.
Nope it was your Nobel Peace Prize winning loved by Million (except Email deleting Hilary Clinton) recently blessed by the Pope US President Barrack Obama.
Why because those American ground troops are needed elsewhere.
The Taliban have captured the second biggest city in Afghanistan freed hundreds of prisoner and raised the Alquida flag.
First rule of battle try not to pull out half way through a fight and then have to come back later.That is called a retreat.
Another Sky TV return series for landmine dodging Ross Kemp i suppose.
Russell please explain just why is the leader of the free world prepared to make deals with terrorists, vicious Islamic sectarian militias and nasty Middle Eastern Dictators.
Nothing to do with Iraq ,Syria, Iran ,Saudi Arabia are all sitting on the worlds biggest supply of green house gas producing fossil fuels now is it ?
Russel love the irony of having a conference in Paris to limit the supply of fossil fuels in the middle of an oil and gas glut just as China America and the EU are trying to pull out off recession.
Why all the fuss about how much money Jagadish Shukla earns? Everybody knows that no matter how much climate scientists and activists get paid it will be chicken feed compared to the backhanders that deniers get from the fossil fuel industry. After all, that is what the Guardian and the Greens tell us so it is bound to be true.
Why all the fuss about how much money Jagadish Shukla earns? Everybody knows that no matter how much climate scientists and activists get paid it will be chicken feed compared to the backhanders that deniers get from the fossil fuel industry. After all, that is what the Guardian and the Greens tell us so it is bound to be true.
Terminally innumerate readers , Caddy Charles included , will find that one Exxon CEO = $40,000,000 a year, nt including stock options, or roughly twice what the 259 IPCC boffins net .
Sep 29, 2015 at 8:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell
Russell - do us all a favour and stop misusing the term 'boffin'.
I suggest you justify what you said. Your number ½ × $40,000,000 / 259 = $77,220 does not seem credible as the total income of an "IPCC principal" (whatever that is).
But, in any case, as somebody said, nobody with a brain gives a rat's arse what the CEO of some successful company is paid.
Do the combined salaries of all 259 IPCC principals amount to more or less than what Exxon pays its CEO?
Sep 28, 2015 at 9:54 Russell
Exxon produces wealth and health for everyone. IPPC scientist lie, cheat and try to reduce the wealth and health of everyone but themselves.
Do the combined salaries of all 259 IPCC principals amount to more or less than what Exxon pays its CEO?
The decision how much to pay him is made by the Board, and ultimately shareholders. If they want to pay him that much, it is up to them.
Russell,
You really are clueless, it's not how much a persons income is but how it's obtained.
Russell, presumably it relieves your feelings to make such silly and irrelevant remarks. But are you not concerned by the damage they do to your cause? Readers may suppose (wrongly) that this sort of thing is the best that can be said for it. Better to keep quiet - time is a great healer.
Just because Russell resorts to whataboutery doesn't mean we have to go along. We ought to be asking him whether he will denounce the activities of Shukla if the Pielke/McIntyre information is true. It is a habit of committed tribalists never to see wrong on their own side. It's a clue as to whether to take them seriously.
we are all taken aghast by the display of progressivism from rusell..
reminds me how the londonistan tubedrivers justify their extorsiin racket (32h work, 8w holidays, pension, avg salary of 50k to push 2 buttons in a lok) : fredthshred the ceo of royal bak of scotland earned more you know, ooooh
this sort of reasoning makes it okay to kill your neighbour because mao killed 20million
i am sure slingo justifies taking care of her family this way as well