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

originally posted by: jrod

Show me some evidence that contradicts what 90 something% of the experts are telling us.

I want to see data, not a wishy washy argument that implies I have been brainwashed.

The only data you see is the data corrupt megalomaniacs want you to see. And from there you pick and choose which data fits your preferred narrative, and formulate policy based on that.

The whole process is about as unscientific as you can get, laden with the influence of special (and self) interests in every regard.

I'm not saying climate change, in any degree, isn't caused by man. I'm not saying that it is, either. My point is that it's foolish to believe what these people, on either side, are telling us (which something you read in a peer-reviewed study is part of).

a reply to: NthOther

So you are saying we have no reliable way of knowing if any data is correct?

Do you not at least agree that there has been a 40%ish rise in CO2 concentrations since the rise of the industrial age?

We are observing a sharp rise in CO2 concentrations, there is no doubt about it. This has many people who understand a little about the atmosphere dynamics concerned, and for good reason.

Again no data, just another wishy washy argument from you. It seems to me your post is backhanded attempt to cast doubt on what the science is actually telling us about climate change.

originally posted by: jrod

So you are saying we have no reliable way of knowing if any data is correct?

Data collected by people with a sociopolitical agenda (with is virtually all of them), yes. That is precisely what I am saying.

Do you not at least agree that there has been a 40%ish rise in CO2 concentrations since the rise of the industrial age?

I can agree that the "experts" say so. But who was measuring CO2 concentrations in the late 19th century? Who even knew what a CO2 concentration was at the start of the industrial age?

No one. Do you know what baseline measure is? Anyway. Not the point.

We are observing a sharp rise in CO2 concentrations, there is no doubt about it. This has many people who understand a little about the atmosphere dynamics concerned, and for good reason.

Fair enough. One need only step outside and look at the skyline to see that there's a lot of crap in the air that isn't supposed to be there. I will concede you that.

a reply to: NthOther

Since we started observing CO2 concentrations, they have been going up every year. This fact has been independently verified.

www.pmel.noaa.gov...

Weekly CO2 trend

280ppm is the estimated starting point, however it was just under 320ppm when we started observing this around 1960. Now we broke 400ppm about 2 years ago, and each year will be hitting the 400ppm mark earlier. There are seasonal variations with measurement, during the summer and early fall the CO2 concentrations fall as a result of more plant life, and then fall in the winter and spring as plants are not taking up as much CO2.

This is important because CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, what we call a greenhouse gas.

There is no way the government wants climate change in the court room.

And there are reasons that the climate change skeptics would love to get climate change scientists in court and UNDER OATH.

a reply to: smurfy

Pielke is not so much a climate change denier, one statement

Correct, he doesn't deny global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2 however, he consistently obfuscates other scientists work including cherry picking, graph manipulation and misrepresenting what scientists say.

Your cursory glances, are a tad er, cursory.

Ish... this is all very familiar. If a true scandal has been uncovered it would literally be a first.

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.

Not sure what your point is there.

Now, Shukla no longer wants to sue climate deniers, something he signed up to a little time ago.

No one wanted to sue climate deniers to begin with. Some climate scientists want (RICO) investigations into corporations that fund denialism and Shukla still does. I believe he has not withdrawn his name from the letter but has removed the letter from one of his websites because that is what may have been inappropriate regarding the type of non-profit.

originally posted by: ANNED
There is no way the government wants climate change in the court room.

And there are reasons that the climate change skeptics would love to get climate change scientists in court and UNDER OATH.

Climate scientists have been placed under oath many times, absurdly many, in courtrooms in Congress etc...

originally posted by: Kali74
A cursory glance tells me that Jagadish Shukla hasn't done anything wrong but that won't stop the vapors from coming on.

You might want to give it more than a cursory glance--much of my job entails helping AUSAs prosecute people for financial schemes like this. From my more-than cursory glance, this Shukla fella needs to be officially investigated.

originally posted by: ANNED
There is no way the government wants climate change in the court room.

And there are reasons that the climate change skeptics would love to get climate change scientists in court and UNDER OATH.

Sadly, "under oath" means nothing to anyone anymore, mainly because there is no punishment for lying under oath these days.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Do you mind linking to this fake published data?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What do you think he's done that's illegal?

a reply to: Kali74

I don't necessarily know of anything illegal at this point...that's why I'm saying that he should be investigated. It's little indicators about the processes in which he's moved around some of the money that warrant, IMO, an investigation to see if anything has been done illegally. Plus, I'd really be interested to see what he and his family members are claiming for income on their taxes during the time in question.

a reply to: jrod

Whoops... went off on a tangent.


I am still trying to figure out what exactly Shukla did wrong.

What is wrong with making a little money without causing harm to others or the environment?

No evidence of data manipulation either. This smells like a manufactured story possibly aimed at casting doubt on the scientists who study this planet's climate and atmosphere.

I can't but wonder if climate science will be up for debate in the 2016 election.

a reply to: NthOther

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

Climate change is kinda like the double slit experiment. The difference is that some folk are stubborn as mules and kick whenever anyone suggests human activity has not had an adverse effect to our planet.

Smog is not sheep's farts, it is emissions produced by us. Trees do not cut themselves down, we cut them down. Yet we have the same folk rolling out the same graphs over and over and over again in a vain attempt to convince us that we are not the problem.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

If you would like to talk about controlling pollution and re-forestration...fine. But that has nothing at all to do with the plans of the global warmers.

Global warmers would like to spend trillions to reduce the discharge of CO2 (a totally and completely necessary component to plant growth).

Personally I would love to see all the money spent on global warming re-directed to cleaning all the plastics out of the ocean.

Tired of control freaks

originally posted by: jrod

What is wrong with making a little money without causing harm to others or the environment?

No evidence of data manipulation either. This smells like a manufactured story possibly aimed at casting doubt on the scientists who study this planet's climate and atmosphere.

I can't but wonder if climate science will be up for debate in the 2016 election.

Climate science should always be up for debate, the same as as in any subject that has a given governmental status, especially since that status involves distribution of huge sources of public money, that we, the public, have absolutely no control over, and that the said governments have absolutely no clue as to what, or where, the money is going to.

There is also the, 'small' matter of nepotism as described here,
IGES Personnel:
President Shukla, Jagadish
Business Manager Shukla, Anastasia
Assistant Business Manager Shukla, Sonia
Director, COLA Kinter, James
Assistant to the President Shukla, Sonia