A summary of the Shukla affair – The German view.
Generous climate alarmism: Former IPCC lead author took in $750,000 a year promoting climate catastrophe
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]
Recently at our site here we reported on some IPCC-friendly scientists who attempted – by using the US Department of Justice – to silence other climate scientists because they merely held different opinions. 20 scientists requested President Barack Obama in a letter to go after climate skeptics for misleading the American people and profiting from it.
At the very top of the list of the signatories was Prof. Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, a former IPCC lead author. Research revealed, however, that over the past years Shukla himself was involved in lucrative business with his climate alarmism. Roger Pielke Jr. found Shukla and his wife had received a half a million US dollars per year from a supposed non-profit organization for a part-time job. Together with his regular annual salary of 250,000 US dollars from the university, climate alarm for the Shukla family was indeed paying off handsonely, details at Climate Depot.
Steve McIntyre looked into the matter as well and found that Shukla’s annual income was in fact even higher – close to a million dollars. Read his article “Shukla’s Gold” at Climate Audit:
Roger Pielke Jr. recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled ‘non-profit'(Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.
Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.
Pielke had quoted Shukla’s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014. In addition, the “non-profit” organization had also employed one of Shukla’s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shukla’s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.
Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.”
Continue reading at Climate Audit.
In the meantime the letter to Barack Obama posted at the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) website – the institution from which Shukla received his extravagant allowance: gone. Did someone suddenly get scared because of the payments and brash activism? Today at the IGES website one only finds an advisory stating that the institute had just been disbanded and that the letter (which had been inadvertently put up) is also gone:
The letter that was inadvertently posted on this web site has been removed. It was decided more than two years ago that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) would be dissolved when the projects then undertaken by IGES would be completed. All research projects by IGES were completed in July 2015, and the IGES web site is in the process of being decommissioned.”
More research into the matter then showed, however, that the institute cannot be dissolved at all because recently it received another 4 million US dollars for a new research project from the National Science Foundation. The project is supposed to run until 2017. In the meantime the US Congress has taken an interest in the matter to see just how the 63 million dollars in government grant money, which IGES has received since 2001, is compatible with extreme political activism. Moreover the university must check whether the princely paid part-time job complies to the university regulations.
The attempt to muzzle climate scientists who hold other opinions using the Department of Justice has backfired. If anything is learned from all this, it is that it has become obvious that there’s a lot of money to be made with climate alarmism – which was something that previously had always been kept away from the public.