It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientist who urged government to sue climate skeptics gets millions from taxpayers.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Okay, It's not often I would use Fox news as a source, because I understand they are so often cosy with big companies, and propaganda in general. However in this spread I do see things that need some consideration where there is quite some detail of taxpayer monies to Jagadish Shukla in the report, while much of that detail was first uncovered by University of Colorado environmental science professor Roger Pielke, Jr.


Extract,

"A key signatory of a petition calling for government to sue companies that question climate change has pulled the letter from his institute's website amid revelations his family reaped $500,000 in salary and benefits last year from the government-funded organization.

The controversy started after George Mason University climatologist Jagadish Shukla and 19 other scientists signed a letter on Sept. 1 urging lawsuits against companies like Exxon for, the petitioners claim, intentionally misleading about climate change. They say the federal government could sue using “RICO” laws originally designed to prosecute the mob, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has also backed the idea."

Shukla has groups like, "The Institute of Global Environment and Society" (IGES) a group that gets 90 percent of its revenue from government grants, and connected closely to the, “Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies.” with another George Mason University man at the helm and receiving money from Shukla, as well as family members of Shukla being well salaried from grants So it appears that Shukla puilled his letter because of these revelations.
So, if this is all true, people need to ask why the like of NASA and NOAA knock out grants to organisations doing the same kind of research that have the same faces in them? Is this the Squirrel syndrome all over again?...research into the Squirrel's nuts because of climate change, and elsewhere, but not too far away, research into the Squirrel's habitat due to climate change. Much more reading in the link.

www.foxnews.com...




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy
Money drives both sides of the argument. Who to believe?
Thanks for posting smurfy.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

There is a thread up at Climate audit dealing with this subject climateaudit.org... The comment section is up yo 320 as of now . It got a lot of details in it .....peace



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Pielke and that whole shebang of climate denial buffoons never get anything right. A cursory glance tells me that Jagadish Shukla hasn't done anything wrong but that won't stop the vapors from coming on.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: smurfy

There is a thread up at Climate audit dealing with this subject climateaudit.org... The comment section is up yo 320 as of now . It got a lot of details in it .....peace

Interesting stuff there.
Thanks for the link.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

Pielke and that whole shebang of climate denial buffoons never get anything right. A cursory glance tells me that Jagadish Shukla hasn't done anything wrong but that won't stop the vapors from coming on.

It would appear that he might be breaking VA law due to the fact that he is a state employee.
Then there is just the ethical part of having most of his family on the payroll.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Anything to demonize 'liberal' ideals like concern over our environment, women's right to choose, ect...

Who cares about the facts when your faithful will blindly fall for these manufactred stories.

Some off their faithful truly belief in AGW and science is a demonized form of religion, a cult.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
This is what science is now. It has actually become the art of manipulating popular opinion (and consequently that of the state) to coax as much money out of the system as possible.

And the idiot masses hang on the words of these "scientists" as though they were prophets.


edit on 10/12/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: smurfy
Money drives both sides of the argument. Who to believe?
Thanks for posting smurfy.

Thank you for looking in! No matter what, it does make you think, this whole thing from the year dot has been so edgy.
To be sure, there is a lot more I could have done to fine tune this thread as if climate change versus what? something else? but it would probably take a millennium to make all the information in some way coherent, and only by way of a cheat sheet, either way. That's the one thing that gets me, millions being made by carrot pullers, making money they could never spend.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: smurfy

There is a thread up at Climate audit dealing with this subject climateaudit.org... The comment section is up yo 320 as of now . It got a lot of details in it .....peace


Thanks for adding the very good link, and is in advance of the source I used.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

He was not advocating for the punishment of GW skeptics. He was pointing out the fact that the only scientists who disagreed with the data were scientists who worked for the corporations that had the most to lose. He was showing us that those scientists were faking data. And faking data like that is against the law. He was pointing out that since there were several corporations involved, that the RICO laws could be enforced to bring it under federal jurisdiction.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

anyone can sue anyone for any reason. blame the system not the science. if you want to take on the science head on, tread slowly.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

In the climate audit link ,down in the comment section Dr. David Verardo from the National Science Foundation (NSF) chimes in . This is the link to the document that was served on Shukla from The House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology demanding them to preserve all Emails and information associated with the story . science.house.gov...



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Yay, Freemason doing their f****** job! in the 21th century!!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

Pielke and that whole shebang of climate denial buffoons never get anything right. A cursory glance tells me that Jagadish Shukla hasn't done anything wrong but that won't stop the vapors from coming on.


Pielke is not so much a climate change denier, one statement,
"The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions." That's what he has said in the past....he believes what the IPCC have said. Your cursory glances, are a tad er, cursory. No harm, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Shukla ,should he have been a military man has more pips than just about the lot of them, and even led the er, Nobel award winning IPCC panel in 2007 along with Al gore. Now, Shukla no longer wants to sue climate deniers, something he signed up to a little time ago. Just my cursory glance on things!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: smurfy

He was not advocating for the punishment of GW skeptics. He was pointing out the fact that the only scientists who disagreed with the data were scientists who worked for the corporations that had the most to lose. He was showing us that those scientists were faking data. And faking data like that is against the law. He was pointing out that since there were several corporations involved, that the RICO laws could be enforced to bring it under federal jurisdiction.


"He was not advocating for the punishment of GW skeptics. He was pointing out the fact that the only scientists who disagreed with the data were scientists who worked for the corporations that had the most to lose."

That is strike one, It is debatable, Snowden in his technical field, jumped ship, (no matter what people may think of Snowden one way or the other) meaning that ideology can be overpowering.

"He was showing us that those scientists were faking data. And faking data like that is against the law."

That is strike two, if he was showing that, why did he take his name off the list of 19 whatever, or is he going to sue those companies himself or leave it up to the other 18...Ooops, they were not going to sue anybody, they wanted the government to do it, and prove it. That would be like a karaoke session.

edit on 12-10-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: smurfy

In the climate audit link ,down in the comment section Dr. David Verardo from the National Science Foundation (NSF) chimes in . This is the link to the document that was served on Shukla from The House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology demanding them to preserve all Emails and information associated with the story . science.house.gov...

Man Oh! man, what was that figure? $63 million circa 2001, and on the go long before that...and that PDF is dated 1st October 2015. Thanks again.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Awesome how your little spew is quite popular.

Real science is not influenced by money, politics, or popularity. It does not manipulate opinions.

What you rant about is not science and I think it is intellectually dishonest for an intelligent person to make such claims about science.
edit on 12-10-2015 by jrod because: at



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Jrod

You are a complete and utter hyprocrite

A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics
apge: 1

I have just posted the name of the thread where you were criticizing scientists because you claim they were bought off by corporations.

Now it is pointed out that exactly what I was discussing in the other thread is true. Global warming scientists have a personal vested interest in supporting the theory of global warming and it is in order to keep the grants coming and rolling in from the government.

You obviously have nothing but bias and are as intellectually bankrupt as you accuse others of being.

NONE OF THIS IS SCIENCE! The moment the government announced the "sience is settled" and "there is a consensus", it was proof that the theory of global warming is NOT science. Its a SCAM!

Tired of Control Freaks




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join