Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo

One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of data, of which ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of sites/data in “regional [treering] chronologies” is one important family.  This was the issue in the original Yamal controversy, in response to which Briffa stated that they “would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or unrepresentative result”. However, Briffa and associates have never set out ex ante criteria for site inclusion/exclusion, resulting in the methodology for Briffa regional reconstructions seeming more like Calvinball than science, as discussed in many CA posts.

Unlike Briffa, D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famously told the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie.   Again in 2009 (though not noticed at the time), D’Arrigo et al 2009 stated that they could “partially circumvent” the divergence problem by only using data that went up:

The divergence problem can be partially circumvented by utilizing tree-ring data for dendroclimatic reconstructions from sites where divergence is either absent or minimal. (Wilson et al., 2007; Buntgen et al., in press; Youngblut and Luckman, in press).

Portfolio managers would have like to have a similar option in constructing portfolios: if, after the fact, you pick stocks that went up, it would be trivially easy to “circumvent” market downturns.  That paleoclimatologists seem so obtuse to this simple observation is a major puzzlement.

In today’s post, I’ll show an absolutely breathtaking example of biased ex post picking by D’Arrigo et al in the D’Arrigo et al 2006 CNWT chronology.  It was impossible for anyone to identify the full measure of this bias at the time or for many years afterwards, as D’Arrigo and coauthors failed to archive data at the time and refused to provide it when requested. They were supported in their refusal by IPCC WG1 Co-Chair Susan Solomon, who, as CA readers are aware, threatened me with expulsion as an IPCC AR4 reviewer for seeking supporting data for D’Arrigo et al 2006 (then cited in preprint by AR4).   The data showing the cherry picking only became available in 2014 as part of a belated archiving program in the final year of Gordon Jacoby’s life.  

Continue reading

Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates – update

A guest article by Nicholas Lewis


In a recent article I discussed the December 2015 Marvel et al.[1] paper, which contends that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from recent observations of changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) are biased low. Marvel et al. reached this conclusion from analysing the response of the GISS-E2-R climate model in simulations over the historical period (1850–2005) when driven by six individual forcings, and also by all forcings together, the latter referred to as the ‘Historical’ simulation. The six individual forcings analysed were well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHG), anthropogenic aerosols, ozone, land use change, solar variations and volcanoes. Ensembles of five simulation runs were carried out for each constituent individual forcing, and of six runs for all forcings together. Marvel et al.’s estimates were based on averaging over the relevant simulation runs; taking ensemble averages reduces the impact of random variability.

In this article I will give a update on the status of two points I tentatively raised in my original article. Continue reading

Bob Carter

I was very saddened to learn of the sudden death of Bob Carter ( here here).   He was one of the few people in this field that I regarded as a friend.  He was only a few years older than me and we got along well personally.

carterI will not attempt to comment on his work as that is covered elsewhere, but do wish to mention something personal.  In 2003, when I was unknown to anyone other than my friends and family, I had been posting comments on climate reconstructions at a chatline.  Bob emailed me out of the blue with encouragement, saying that I was looking at the data differently than anyone else and that I should definitely follow it through.  Without his specific encouragement, it is not for sure that I ever would have bothered trying to write up what became McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) or anything else.

We’ve met personally on a number of occasions over the years – at AGU in 2004 or 2005, and on several occasions at Erice, most recently last summer.  He was always full of good cheer, despite continuing provocations, and unfailingly encouraging.








Appraising Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates

A guest article by Nicholas Lewis

Note: This is a long article: a summary is available here.


In a recent paper[1], NASA scientists led by Kate Marvel and Gavin Schmidt derive the global mean surface temperature (GMST) response of the GISS-E2-R climate model to different types of forcing. They do this by simulations over the historical period (1850–2005) driven by individual forcings, and by all forcings together, the latter referred to as the ‘Historical’ simulation.

They assert that their results imply that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from recent observations are biased low.

Marvel et al. use the GISS-E2-R historical period simulation responses to revise estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from three observationally-based studies: Otto et al. 2013, Lewis and Curry 2014 and Shindell 2014. Their revisions give figures that are substantially higher than in the original studies. Remarkably, the Marvel et al. reworked observational estimates for TCR and ECS are, taking the averages for the three studies, substantially higher than the equivalent figures for the GISS-E2-R model itself, despite the model exhibiting faster warming than the real climate system. Not only is the GMST increase simulated by GISS-E2-R is higher than that observed, but the ocean heat uptake rate is well above the observed level.[2] No explanation is given for this surprising result. Continue reading

Update of Model-Observation Comparisons

The strong El Nino has obviously caused great excitement in the warmist community.  It should also cause any honest skeptic/lukewarmer to re-examine whether observations remain inconsistent with models. In today’s post, I’ll show two comparisons: 1) CMIP5 models (TAS) vs HadCRUT4; 2) CMIP5 models (TLT) vs RSS (UAH is only negligibly different).  For this post, I’ve used the same scripts as I used in earlier comparisons.  Continue reading

COP21 Emission Projections

In the wake of COP21, I thought that it would be interesting to compare the respective pathways of China and the U.S (and others) based on official data. I still plan to post on this topic, but obtaining official data on the pathways proved much more difficult than I anticipated.  Leading into the COP21 conference on October 31, 2015, the UNFCCC Secretariat published its  “Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions”, the terms of reference of which were described as follows:


The UNFCCC Synthesis Report was 66 pages long.  However, it contained zero information on the commitments of the individual countries or even regions.   Searching for such information will be the topic of today’s post.  Continue reading

Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency

There was some publicity this week on a paper by Young et al (Science Advances, 2015), which, according to Gifford Miller , whose work has been frequently discussed at CA (see  tag), had supposedly put the “coup de grace on the Medieval Warm Period”, that had been so long wished for by the Team.   I will discuss (and dissect) this article in a forthcoming post, but first wish to report on some related developments in an article (Balascio et al, Climate of the Past, 2015) which I had discussed last summer while it was in open review, which I will subsequently connect to the discussion of Young et al. Continue reading

What “Science” is “Telling Us” About Climate Damages to Canada

Just before leaving for Paris, the Canadian government, like many others,  stated that “science” was “telling us” that climate change was “one of the greatest threats of our time”.

The scientific evidence is clear: climate change is one of the greatest threats of our time. The Government of Canada recognizes that global temperature increases must be limited to at most two degrees Celsius, and Canada’s way forward on climate change is being informed by what the science is telling us.

The Canadian government posted up a briefing by “renowned climate scientists Dr. Gregory Flato (Environment Canada) and Mr. Alain Bourque (Ouranos)” to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Cabinet Ministers, and provincial and territorial Premiers – see here.

I was particularly interested in their argument on how the “threat” to Canada manifested itself.  How exactly does “science” show that a modest increase of temperature would severely damage Canada?

Too often, expositions of supposed climate damage amount to little more than loud assertions that the science is settled, with occasional interjections of “Look, polar bear!!” (to modify a phrase from And Then There’s Physics). The Flato and Bourque presentation is in this tradition. Its exposition of damages consists of only a few slides accompanied by very short explanatory text.

In today’s post, I will parse the first such slide and will try to parse other slides in future posts.

Continue reading

Antarctic Ice Mass Controversies

Like many others, I was interested in the recent controversy arising from findings of Zwally et al 2015 that there had been ice mass gain gain of ~112±61 Gt/year over 1992-2001 and ~82±25 Gt/year over 2003-2008.  Zwally’s findings obviously contradict a widely held contrary belief, expressed, for example, in IPCC AR5’s assertion there was “high confidence” that the Antarctic Ice Sheet had been losing mass for the prior two decades and that the rate of loss had “likely increased” to ~147±75 GT/year over 2002-2011 or in NASA’s widely cited statement that “the continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002”.

I had no prior interest in the literature, but was intrigued by the dramatic contrast between Zwally and IPCC on such a widely covered topic.  This quickly led into a voluminous technical literature, which is the subject of today’s post.   The issues were not only about interpretation of satellite data, but quickly led into thorny interpretations of the history of the entire Holocene.

Warning: the following post is very lengthy, but I think that the details are worth paying attention to.

Continue reading

Shukla’s Gold

shukla millionRoger 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.

In addition, Shukla’s long-time associate, James Kinter, participated in the same double dip, though on a less grandiose scale. Kinter, also a Professor at George Mason, doubled his 2014 university salary of $180,038 with $171,320 from IGES, for a total 2014 income of $351,358.

In today’s post, I’ll make an attempt to follow the money.  This analysis is not an audit as I obviously do not have access to original documents – only public information and, for the purposes of this note, only online research.  In addition, the history is quite complicated,as the institutions reach back over 30 years and have changed relationships over time.  I’ve examined NSF, NOAA and NASA online grant information, which covers only part of the period (NOAA to 2001; NASA to 2006) and placed a summary spreadsheet online here.

Because “warmists” regularly re-assure skeptics that income from research is strictly regulated under federal policies (e,g. Andrew Dessler here), the parties who ought to have the most interest in the structure are warmists, rather than skeptics, though the opposite seems to be the case thus far.

NSF Policy

Before discussing Shukla’s structure, I’ll first quickly comment on institutional policies, as both the federal agencies (NSF, NOAA, NASA) and the university (George Mason) purport to have policies that prevent double-dipping.

NSF policies purportedly regulate research compensation for members of university faculties by limiting their compensation in the academic year to their university salary, while permitting them to top up their university salary in summer months, but set their compensation at the monthly rate of their university salary (the “two-ninths rule”, as follows:

 611.1 Salaries and Wages

  1. All Grantees. All remuneration paid currently or accrued by the organization for employees working on the NSF-supported project during the grant period is allowable to the extent that:
    1. total compensation to individual employees is reasonable for the work performed and conforms to the established policy of the organization consistently applied to both government and non-government activities; and
    2. the charges for work performed directly under NSF grants and for other work allocable as indirect costs are determined and documented as provided in the applicable Federal cost principles.
  2. Colleges and Universities. Section J.10 of OMB Circular A-21 establishes criteria for compensation work performed on government projects by faculty members during and outside the academic year.

NSF’s policy is:

  1. Academic Year Salaries. To be based on the individual faculty member’s regular compensation for the continuous period which, under the policy of the institution concerned, constitutes the basis of his/her salary. Except as provided in GPM 616.2, “Intra-University Consulting,” charges to Federal grants, irrespective of the basis of computation, will not exceed the proportionate share of the base salary for that period.
  2. Periods Outside the Academic Year. During the summer months or other periods not included in the period for which the base salary is paid, salary is to be paid at a monthly rate not in excess of the base salary divided by the number of months in the period for which the base salary is paid. NSF policy on funding of summer salaries (known as NSF’s two-ninths rule) remains unchanged: proposal budgets submitted should not request, and NSF-approved budgets will not include, funding for an individual investigator which exceeds two-ninths of the academic year salary. This limit includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants.

Andrew Dessler, who, like most climate academics, has consistently denied that research funding has any impact on alarmism, summarized the above policy as follows:

Texas A&M pays 10 months of my salary to teach. The other two months of my salary are paid out of grants for doing research, but the University sets the amount I receive during those two months equal to the m$158.06onthly rate that the University pays me the other 10 months. Thus, the vast majority of my salary is completely disconnected with research.

There are many other obligations on recipients of federal research grants, many of which are summarized in the NSF Grants Manual.

George Mason University Policy

Shukla has been on the faculty of George Mason University since 1993 (1984-1992 University of Maryland) and, during that time, has obtained federal grants both in the name of George Mason University and the Institute for Global Environment and Security Inc. discussed below).

George Mason, like  most universities, has a policy on conflict of interest,  including a detailed policy on conflict of interest in federally funded research.   Under such policies, “non-profits” are classified as “business”, a protocol that seems very apt when large salaries are withdrawn by insiders from a closely-held “non-profit”:

“Business” means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, trust or foundation, or any other individual or entity carrying on a business or profession, whether or not for profit.

The University conflict of interest policies require comprehensive and formal disclosure of personal and family financial interests to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

This policy applies to any person who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of any research funded by a Federal agency.  The responsible parties listed in this policy act as institutional officials for purposes of policy implementation, enforcement, and reporting.

Financial Conflict of interest” (FCOI) means a significant financial interest (SFI) directly and significantly affecting the design, conduct, or reporting of the federally funded research.

“Significant financial interest” means a financial interest consisting of one or more of the following interests of the investigator (and/or those of the investigator’s spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appears to be related to the investigator’s institutional responsibilities:

Investigators who apply for any federally funded research must disclose certain financial interests related to that research.  Specifically, each investigator must provide a list of his or her known SFIs (and those of his or her spouse and/or dependent children) related to the investigator’s institutional responsibilities.

As a part of the university’s application for federal funds, each investigator must certify (1) that he or she has no such interests or (2) that he or she has such interests and has disclosed them through the institution’s disclosure process.  The Office of Sponsored Programs maintains custody of the investigator’s certification.

 I have not attempted to make a comprehensive summary of obligations under George Mason University policy.

University of Maryland

Shukla worked at the University of Maryland from 1984-1992 as Professor, Department of Meteorology.  While at the University of Maryland,  Shukla established the “Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions”  (University of Maryland, Dept. of Meteorology).

Nearly all of Shukla’s key associates at George Mason date back to the University of Maryland in the 1980s.  Edwin Schneider was a Research Scientist at the “Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions, University of Maryland, Dept. of Meteorology” from 1984-1993,   James Kinter was Assistant Professor, Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland from 1984-87, subsequently becoming Research Scientist with “COLA, Univ. MD, College Park, MD” from 1987-1993. Daniel Straus was a Research Scientist at the “Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions, University of Maryland, Dept. of Meteorology” from 1988-1993.  Paul Dirmeyer was a Graduate Fellow and Graduate Research Assistant at University of Maryland from 1986-92 before becoming a Research Scientist at “Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions, Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland at College Park” in 1993.

NOAA and NASA online grant information does not go back that far (NOAA only to 2001; NASA only to 2007), but NSF grant data shows two almost simultaneous grants to the University of Maryland entitled “Predictability of Monthly and Seasonal Average Circulation of the Atmosphere”, totalling $2.9 million.  Shukla is PI for both grants, but there are different NSF officers for some reason.

Shukla and associates (with Schneider also appearing as PI) received a new round of NSF grants in 1991, again in the name of the University of Maryland.

Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc. (IGES)

In 1992, Shukla, Kinter and Schneider, while still presumably employees of the University of Maryland, appear to have submitted a proposal to NSF for funding via a private Maryland non-profit corporation, then recently incorporated by Shukla (the Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), as, on January 6, 1993, NSF awarded three grants to IGES totalling $1.7 million, with Shukla, Kinter and Schneider all acting as PIs or co-PIs.  Shukla named himself President.  The present outside directors are an artist (Nora Rosenbaum) and a photographic artist (Patricia Peck) – both of whom were related to Jule Charney –  and long-time friend of Shukla’s from Brazil (Antonio Moura).

With the funding, Shukla established the “Center of Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies” as a unit of the Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.  Kinter, Schneider, Straus and Dirmeyer all moved from the University of Maryland in 1993 to join the new enterprise.

In 1994, Shukla was appointed as Professor of Earth Sciences and Global Change at George Mason University.  Most of his COLA associates would subsequently obtain appointments, but, in the mid-1990s, Shukla appears to have been the only one. In 1994, IGES obtained its first five-year block grant ( a joint grant from NSF, NOAA and NASA) in the amount of $2.25 million/year for 1994-1998.  Over the years, IGES obtained increasingly larger five-year block grants in 1999, 2004 and 2009. IGES appears to have obtained additional special grants from time to time.

Concurrent with awards to IGES, Shukla also obtained NSF grants in the name of George Mason, sometimes with identical titles.  The first such award to George Mason came in 1995 with an award from NSF (Jay Fein once again, PI – Shukla) of $1.1 million entitled “Predictability of Short Term Climate Variations” – a very similar title to the IGES grant.

In the 1999 funding cycle, NSF awarded funds under the title “Predictability and Variability of the Present Climate” to both IGES and George Mason ($4.7 million and $1.25 million, respectively).  It is unclear from this limited record what the respective responsibilities of each institution were: whether the funds were all used for the ongoing research at the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (IGES) or whether there was a separate program at George Mason at the time.

Over time, the base block funding increased: from $2.25 million/year in 1994-98 to $2.75 million/year in 1999-2004, $3.25 million in 2004-2009 and $3,6 million/year in 2009-2014.  In addition to block funds, IGES also received special funds.  Total funding to IGES appears to be at least $75 million: online grant archives at NSF and NOAA show a total of over $28 million and $22 million respectively, but NOAA information is unavailable prior to 2001 and NASA does not provide information on amounts (or at least I have not located it).

Concurrently, George Mason University received at least $17.5 million (the total shown in the online NSF and NOAA archives).

IGES has filed 990 forms over the years, as first brought to light by Roger Pielke Jr.  and is online here as follows: 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2001-2010.

Migration to George Mason

Over the years, functions and personnel of COLA (IGES) have migrated to George Mason, intensifying in recent years. The most recent grants to IGES Inc. appear to have been made in 2009-2010, though funding under these grants seems to have continued until 2014-2015. In recent years, George Mason University has made a number of announcements on the transiation of COLA (IGES) to George Mason, but the precise terms of each agreement are hard to figure out from the public record available thus far.

In 2002 (eight years after Shukla), Kinter, Schneider and Straus were all appointed to the staff of the Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences department, George Mason University in 2002, coinciding with expansion of their climate program. All three continued their employment with IGES (COLA), where Kinter became Director in 2004.

George Mason’s webpage includes a lengthy list of university centers and institutions and, by January 2012 (the earliest web archived version), the Center for Land-Ocean-Atmosphere Studies was  included in the list (January 2012).

On May 10, 2013, George Mason University announced that IGES and COLA(IGES), organizations with “long-standing partnerships” with the University, were “joining” the University and would be “located within” the College of Science:

The Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) and the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA), independent nonprofit research entities established in Maryland with long-standing partnerships with George Mason University, are joining Mason’s College of Science. An event celebrating these new groups will take place at 2 p.m. Monday, May 13, in Mason Hall, Rooms D3A and B.

IGES was established in Maryland in 1993 as a nonprofit to improve understanding and prediction of the variations of the Earth’s climate through scientific research on climate variability and climate predictability, and to share both the results of this research and the tools necessary to carry out this research with society as a whole.

As part of IGES, the world-renowned Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere-Studies (COLA) will also be at Mason. COLA is dedicated to understanding climate fluctuations on short- and long-term scales, with special emphasis on the interactions between Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces.

The institute and center will be initially located within the College of Science. All IGES and COLA staff supported by research grants will move from Maryland to Mason, and the staff will teach and conduct their ongoing research projects at Mason.

For the past 20 years, the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration have supported IGES and COLA research with an annual funding of about $4 million.

Once again, the university’s list of its centers in July 2013 includes the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies.

A year later (May 3, 2014), the University announced that Kinter and associates had been awarded $10.5 million from the NSF-NOAA-NASA group for continuation of the COLA work, now titled “Predictability and Prediction of Climate from Days to Decades.”:

Kinter and his team were awarded $4.5 million by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $2.5 million by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and $3.5 million by the National Science Foundation to work on a five-year project called “Predictability and Prediction of Climate from Days to Decades.”

Kinter leads the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies based at George Mason University.

The NSF grants archive shows a grant (1338427) bearing this title in the amount of $4.2 million with start date of Jan 1, 2014 in the name of George Mason University, while the NOAA grant archive shows a grant  (NA04OAR4310160) of $1.8 million with start date of January 2014 also in the name of George Mason, while I have been unable thus far to locate the corresponding grant in the NASA archive.

Shukla Compensation

Despite the various changes in grant structure, one constant (or rather steadily increasing amount) has been the several sources of compensation to Shukla and his wife.

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.


There is a surprising link between the George Mason department and one of my earliest adversaries at NSF, David Verardo, Mann’s handler at NSF, who told him in 2003 that he didn’t have to provide data to me – that Mann was entitled to his view of climate and I was entitled to mine. Verardo’s wife, Stacey Verardo, is a colleague of Shukla, Kinter, Klinger and the others in the AOES department at George Mason, while Verardo himself is a member of the Adjunct Faculty at George Mason. (Update: David Verardo has commented below that his “wife is a geologist who has worked in the department long before climate dynamics was a part of the department” and “has no professional relationship with the climate dynamics group beyond serving in the same department and working on instructional issues that arise at the university” and that he himself “do not handle proposals from GMU because of obvious conflicts of interest but even more practical, the awards to climate dynamic research are not in my NSF program.”)

Shukla attracted attention as the lead author of the RICO20 letter, which was originally posted at the website of the Institute of Global Environment and Society Inc, though the professors all listed George Mason University as their affiliation.  Pielke Jr became curious about the institution that had chosen to initiate this offensive letter and had the bright idea of looking up their 990 filings, thus discovering Shukla’s double dip.

Five other George Mason employees were RICO20 signatories, four of whom are long-time Shukla associates: Dirmeyer, Straus, Paul Schopf and Barry Klinger. (It’s interesting that James Kinter didn’t sign it.)  The other George Mason RICO 20 signatory, Edward Maibach, is in some sort of climate communications and, together with Heidi Cullen, holds a $2,998,178 grant from NSF.  Many of the other RICO20 signatories had previous associations with IGES. Kevin Trenberth and Mike Wallace had both been on its “Science Advisory Committee” in the past.  Nearly all of the RICO20 signatories, including Trenbeth andWallace, attended a large symposium in April 2015 to honor Shukla – see picture at link.

IGES’ webpage says that its corporate objective was to share “the fruits” of its research “with society as a whole”, though, in practice, an equally important objective seems to have been to share the fruits of its research funding with Shukla (and Kinter). The sheer lucrativeness of Shukla’s deal raised some eyebrows in skeptic blogs, but none so far at warmist blogs, not even at Michael Tobis’ aptly named Only In It for the Gold or among Barry Klinger and the RICO20.