Desperate climate alarmists attack skeptics

By |2015-12-28T22:03:06+00:00December 28th, 2015|CFACT Insights|8 Comments

President Obama wasted no crises on the occasion of the UN’s climate fear-fest earlier this month. Associating murderers of 129 people there two just weeks previously with agents of bataclanman-made global warming Armageddon, he observed that by fostering “dangerous” ideologies, climate change “in some ways is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL.”

He even hailed the conference as “a powerful rebuke of terrorists.”

These dangerous culprits presumably include all who challenge the existence of any rational scientific basis for climate hysteria . . . along with disbelievers of pixie dust premises that planetary salvation demands replacing affordable, abundant, and reliable fossil energy with costly, puny, and intermittent windmills and sunbeams.

Even if the climate hadn’t warmed over 19 years prior to the run-up to that conference, feverish rhetoric certainly did. Yale Professor Timothy Snyder’s September New York Times op-ed titled “The Next Genocide” compared those who doubted dangerous man-made climate change with a Nazi commander slaughtering a Jewish baby.nazi

He referred to “these deniers [who] tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

Last February Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, attempted to launch a congressional witch hunt against climate alarm skeptics.

He requested that universities turn over documents about grants, congressional testimony, and other activities involving seven dangerously doubting scientists who have testified at climate hearings.

My good friend Dr. Willie Soon, a distinguished and extensively published scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was targeted for receiving “more than $1 million from [evil] U.S. energy companies over the past decade.”

Not mentioned was that half of that money received over those ten years was paid to his organization for administration, while the rest covered Dr. Soon’s salary and research expenses.

salemU.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) followed suit by publicly encouraging legal prosecution of those who buck a so-called scientific global warming doom and gloom “consensus.”

Following in his presumably carbon-free footprints, Jagdish Shukla, a professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University, along with 19 other academics, sent a September 1st letter to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House Office of Science Policy Director John Holdren which called for “a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” (The “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” (RICO) was primarily directed at Mafia figures that ordered, but didn’t actually commit crimes such as murder.)

The “RICO-20” letter was originally posted on a website of the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), a “nonprofit, tax-exempt research institute” founded by Dr. Shukla. It was later removed.

And where did IGES get its own more than $63 million — 98% of its total revenue since jag2001? A report in The Washington Free Beacon says that a lot came from taxpayers in the form of grants.

According to IRS Form 990 and other documents, 99.6% of its 2014 funding ($3.8 million) was provided by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA.

What’s more, a huge amount of that generous IGES non-profit, tax-exempt largess went into Shukla family pockets. According to tax filings, together with his “business manager” and wife Anastasia and “assistant business manager/assistant to the president” daughter Sonia they drew $5.6 million in compensation since 2001 (not including Sonia’s unreported earnings).

Although his IGES employment was “part time” this was all on top of Jagadish’s $314,000 2014 salary from George Mason University which IGES joined as part of its College of Science in 2013.

As reported by Ian Tuttle in the National Review, the only other member of the IGES staff is longtime Shukla associate James Kinter, who runs George Mason’s Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA).

Kinter (who didn’t sign the RICO-20 letter) added $180,038 from IGES to his $171,320 George Mason University salary in 2014. Shukla also reportedly funneled $100,000 in U.S. IGES grants to his “Institute for Global Education, Equality of Opportunity, and Prosperity,” an “educational charity” located in his hometown in India.

Meanwhile, as satellites show no statistical warming for nearly two decades despite rising CO2 levels while overheated climate models have gone berserk, transparent agendas of glass house residents who attack alarm skeptics warrant reverse scrutiny.

Let’s remember who is paying the bills for a multi-billion-dollar, fear-dependent climate industry which imposes ever-increasing tax and consumer cost hikes for uneconomical and unreliable “green energy” pipe dreams.

In case there’s any lingering doubt, it’s the rest of us.

NOTE:  This article first appeared at:


  1. The Professor December 29, 2015 at 10:16 AM

    Dec 8, 2015 Climate Change is Unfaslifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

    Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

  2. Dan Pangburn December 30, 2015 at 12:15 AM

    The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is that CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 542 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it cumulatively for 542 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.

    Further discussion of the compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on AGT and
    identification of what has caused AGT change for at least the last 400 years
    are at Only one input is needed or used and it
    is publicly available. The match is better than 97% since before 1900.

    The graph below shows calculated temperatures using an equation calibrated by temperatures through 1990.

    • Dano2 December 30, 2015 at 10:49 AM

      Still waiting for you to publish your blockbuster that overturns all of modern physics and ushers in the age of the NewPhysics, so I can brag to everyone that I new Pangs before he became our Modern Galileo.

      Wnen does that paper publish, again?



      • Dan Pangburn December 31, 2015 at 5:36 AM

        If you weren’t too stubborn to look, you might have noticed that the peer reviewed papers, published 2014 & 2015 are identified in the agwunveiled paper. The only physics that is used is conservation of energy.

        • Dano2 December 31, 2015 at 9:38 AM

          Still waiting for your blockbuster to herald the NewPhysics.



          • Dan Pangburn December 31, 2015 at 12:39 PM

            Apparently you lack the skill to even recognize ‘modern physics’.

            • Dano2 December 31, 2015 at 1:07 PM

              When does your blockbuster drop?



  3. dougproctor January 3, 2016 at 8:40 PM

    The bigger problem in the CAGW and Obama narrative is the disconnect between the NOAA 2015 surface station data and the ARGO, satellite and radiosonde data. At the same time, a recent paper (see Judith Curry ) identified the LOWER temperatures of Antarctica consistent with CO2 emission theory ….. using satellite data (and a backhanded swipe at not groundtruthing models with observation). Can CAGW adherents use this paper without admitting the satellite data is good, or must they dismiss these researchers as denialists-in-secret?

    Can’t accept one and not the other ……

Comments are closed.