By Kent Clizbe
The time has come for whistleblowers to come forward and expose climate fraud. Government employees willing to tell the truth about climate can be handsomely rewarded.
You can receive millions of dollars for doing the right thing. Blow the whistle! Some fraudulent research activities covered by the False Claims Act:
- Fabricating data
- Falsifying reports
- Making false statements on applications for grants
- Knowingly failing to comply with the conditions of the grant
- Using grant funds for personal, or other improper, purposes
- Knowingly failing to comply with federal regulations
Now’s the time to speak up. The rewards for telling the truth about fraudulent research activities are considerable.
The potential for retaliation for doing the right thing is less with the new administration.
Do you know details of how or why research fraud was committed? Contact me today using the information below.
The federal government has a vigorous program to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration–the False Claims Act. It provides rewards for insiders who reveal grant fraud.
As detailed daily on Real Science, it is clear that there is widespread fraud in “climate research.”
“Climate research” is a complex operation with multiple international players. With the massive sums of Federal grants involved (Michael Mann’s website lists more than $50 million in grants for his research alone), there is a huge incentive for tight lips.
Like the mafia or other criminal conspiracies, there seems to be a code of silence in the “climate research” community.
A researcher, or aspiring researcher, who is aware of inside information detailing fraudulent activity, would need a considerable incentive to come forward.
Luckily, the False Claims Act provides that incentive.
Insiders with knowledge of fraud are empowered to share their knowledge and to share in rewards. The reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed.
If you have details of fraud in climate research you can share in the rewards paid when the grant funds are recovered.
According to an attorney who specializes in FCA cases against universities and government research offices, including Educational/Research Grant Fraud:
“Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant, or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under [this] program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers.”
Here are some examples of common education institution fraudulent acts:
- Falsifying a grant application in order to secure a grant
- Falsifying research data and results
- Over-charging time, costs and other expenses associated with the grant
- Falsifying purchase orders for equipment and materials
- Using grant money for other unrelated research
- Using grant money for personal expenses
- Improper conflicts of interest by the principal investigators
- Falsifying progress reports and other documentation
- Failing to comply with applicable government safety and other regulations
If you know of anyone who might have details about fraudulent statements or actions by recipients of federal grant funds for climate research, please have them contact me immediately at the below email or cell phone.
All communications are completely confidential. They may want to consider using a third-party email service (Yahoo, Hotmail, or other) instead of your work email to communicate. We will put you in contact with attorneys who specialize in False Claims Act suits.
Your interests will be protected at all times.
Our country, and in fact the entire world, is counting on someone to stand up and tell the truth about climate research.
The effects of moving forward with taxes and policies based on fraudulent science could potentially cripple the US economy and cost lives and jobs for generations.
I specialize in exposing frauds. See the article in the NY Times Sunday Magazine. It details my work that successfully exposed a 13-year-long massive public fraud. Result: FBI arrested the fraudster, pled guilty, sentenced to prison.
AGU Responds to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt–battles ‘publicly available’ data requirement
Anthony Watts / WUWT
23 April 2018
The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
On behalf of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its 60,000 scientist members, I am writing to express concerns about planned policy changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding transparency and accuracy of scientific information. We urge you to evaluate the unintended consequences of these policies and reconsider them.
Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act1, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.2
AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public. However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment. In general, to exclude vital scientific information from consideration would put our local communities’ health and well-being at risk.
Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world.5 The reported guidance requires EPA employees to
emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” This is not only inaccurate, but also jeopardizes the ability of communities to respond appropriately to protect people’s health and well-being from challenges related to climate change.
AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA. We as a nation need to ensure that we are addressing the pressing issues facing our communities by using and disseminating accurate, peer-reviewed and up-to-date scientific information.
AGU would welcome the opportunity to work with you on these critical issues and ensure that science can continue to appropriately inform decision-making and benefit the American public.
Christine McEntee Executive Director/CEO
American Geophysical Union
1 H.R. 1430, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), passed the House on 29 March 2017.
5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/03/29/the-energy-202-scott- pruitt-s-climate-message-is-now-official-epa-guidance/5abbfd3630fb042a378a2f23/?utm_term=.272c755ae673