I’ve been wrestling with this topic for hours now as to how to best present it in this forum. I finally decided to simply just write it as I see it.
It has been an ugly day for law and common sense in the world. Vandalism in the name of ecological causes is now “ok” thanks in part to Dr. James Hansen, of NASA GISS coming to the defense of eco-vandals. See the second story below. Now, encouraged by this “victory” that gives a sanction to eco-vandalism in the UK, how many more shall we see? And if one of these people is injured and kills themselves or others in the process of the next stunt? What then? Who is responsible?
Certainly I want a cleaner world, and better energy resources with focus on the future. But, sanctioning vandalism for these causes is not the way to get there. What do I want from NASA as a taxpayer? Science, solutions, and inspiring ideas turned into reality. I don’t want political activism in the name of science.
After thinking awhile about this, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
1- A NASA scientist siding with vandalism as a “lawful excuse” is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science.
2- Dr. Hansen cannot separate himself from the agency as private citizen in this case, because he was brought in as an “expert witness”. Even if he paid his own way and took personal time, his presence was based on taxpayer funded research.
3- It appears Dr. Hansen has violated the code of ethics posted on the NASA Office of General Council webpage.
From the Goddard Institute for Space Studies web page: GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center‘s Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC’s Sciences and Exploration Directorate. Thus Hansen falls under these ethics rules.
Specifically, Dr. Hansen’s defense of vandalism in the name of a cause he believes in fails under the NASA Misuse of position rule. If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules.
4- As keeper of data, specifically the GISTEMP dataset, he has now brought the impartiality of that data into question due to his activism in areas unrelated to scientific research.
Certainly Dr. Hansen has a body of work that is impressive, there is no disputing that. But it is time for Dr. Jim Hansen to go. Thanks to him, GISS as a dataset is no longer impartial. We have potential bias from the gatekeeper of the data that can’t be separated from the data. If he can come to the defense of lawbreakers in the name of his global warming cause, then it is an even easier jump to allow that same bias to creep into scientific data he is responsible for and his conclusions drawn from that data.
If you feel the same way, your recourse is to write to
Michael D. Griffin
Administrator
c/o NASA Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)
Or use the online submission form
————————————
From the Greenpeace website:
Breaking news: Kingsnorth Six found not guilty!
Five of the ‘Kingsnorth Six’ at the top of the 200m chimney
From The Independent, UK
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
also
Nasa scientist appears in court to fan the flames of coal power station row
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Thursday, 4 September 2008
The Nasa scientist who first drew attention to global warming 20 years ago appeared in a British court yesterday as a key witness in support of climate change activists charged with damaging a power station.
Professor James Hansen gave evidence at Maidstone Crown Court in the case of six Greenpeace members who scaled a 630ft chimney at the Kingsnorth plant in Hoo, Kent, last October in protest against plans to build new coal-fired units there.
The activists planned to paint the slogan “Gordon Bin It” on the chimney, but only got as far as the Prime Minister’s christian name before they obeyed a High Court injunction ordering them down. They were charged with causing £35,000 of damage – the sum it cost the plant’s owner, E.ON, to scrub off the word “Gordon”.
Greenpeace argues that under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, its activists had a “lawful excuse” to cause the damage because they were seeking to prevent even greater damage being caused to property – such as flooding from rising sea levels and damage to species caused by climate change.
Yesterday, Prof Hansen, who has spoken out against the Bush administration’s stance on global warming, said Britain had a responsibility to take a lead on limiting climate change because it was responsible – owing to its long industrial past – for much of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Phasing out coal-burning power stations was crucial in tackling global warming, he told the court.
“Somebody needs to stand up and take a leadership role,” Prof Hansen said. “It is an opportunity for the Prime Minister. If we are to avoid disintegration of the ice sheets, minimise species extiction and halt or reverse… climate change there is just time to accomplish it, but it requires an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture or sequester CO2.”
Prof Hansen joined the Kingsnorth debate in December when he wrote to Gordon Brown and urged him to drop plans for coal-fired plants that do not capture CO2 emissions. E.ON wants to build two new coal-fired units at the ageing plant. The Government is considering whether to approve the planning application.
Before travelling to Kent, Prof Hansen met the David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who is thought to be unhappy about the plan for Kingsnorth, which is being promoted by John Hutton, the Business Secretary. Mr Brown will have the final say later this year.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s time Michael Griffen to apply some real heat to James Hansen. If he can’t do so due to Hansen’s political and environmental backers then perhaps Griffen should reconsider his own employment at NASA.
First, even if they had been found guilty, Hansen should be fired for taking part of something that is not science based, but activism based. However, now they have been found innocent on such flimsy grounds and, according to this story, Hansen acted as the defense primary witness. What an embarrassment for all Americans.
Second, I firmly believe this requires much more than contact with the NASA administrators. It’s time for a full congressional investigation into his (and probably other NASA employees) work at NASA. The activist attitude that he is putting forth is pathetic and at minimum, unethical, but probably, criminal.
His “science” (or lack thereof) is being used to push a fraud on the American people.
Well, I put in my comment on the on-line form.
Maybe hearing it from another US Govt employee will carry a little weight…
I’ll be sure to post about any reply I get.
I doubt the NASA Administrator is going to touch this in the seven weeks before election.
As a NASA employee Hansen will many layers of protection from discharge. A marginal violation of policy probably wouldn’t be enough.
If Hansen has used his position to tinker with data or facts then prove that. He has been a lightning rod for many years, so if his work still isn’t being completely checked by NASA it never will be.
Mr Hansen has lowered the status of NASA to that of eco Activist. He and by association those that work with him can no longer be trusted to provide the correct clear data and analysis necessary to any one to provide the information to make sound judgements concerning our current environment much less the future climate of the planet.
Bill Derryberry
“Vandalism in the name of ecological causes is now “ok” thanks in part to Dr. James Hansen, of NASA GISS coming to the defense of eco-vandals.”
This can work both ways….
Doesn’t Hansen commute more than 60 miles to work? A crime by his own definition. How many species is he killing?
This opens up a host of interesting legal questions. I know next to nothing about British Law other than the US adopted it. Given that a jury acquitted the defendants I imagine it won’t have too much impact on future cases, but if it’s okay to paint coal-fired smokestacks, is it okay to paint containment vessels at nuclear reactors?
If a protester manages to fall and get injured, is it the responsibility of the operators? Should they provide safety training for anyone who might want to deface the site?
Who besides Greenpeace? Farmers upset with the price of fuel? Upset with the weather? Militant Islamics out to rid the world of infidels?
Up ’til now, I figured the situation in the UK couldn’t be as bad as some have described. Guess I was wrong.
Have you seen Hansen’s latest?
NASA study illustrates how global peak oil could impact climate
http://www.physorg.com/news140287137.html#javascript
“Because coal is much more plentiful than oil and gas, reducing coal emissions is absolutely essential to avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change brought about by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration exceeding 450 parts per million,” Kharecha said. “The most important mitigation strategy we recommend – a phase-out of carbon dioxide emissions from coal within the next few decades.”
“…a phase-out of carbon dioxide emissions from coal within the next few decades.”???
What happened to the 2000 deadline, and the 2015 deadline? We have decades now?
Of course, we have to shut down all our coal plants first…
If he can suspend the rule of law for exigencies, he can pervert science for ideology, and he has done both.
=======================================
This is the comment that I entered on the online comments for for NASA,
Sir or Madam,
It comes to my attention that one of your employees has traveled to a foreign country to act as an expert witness in a trial concerning VANDALISM. This trial had nothing to do with science it had to do with the crime of vandalism. Dr. James Hansen as a witness indicated that in his expert opinion vandalism was a valid action as regards to action to enforce your beliefs against another party. That party was not acting outside the law. Dr. Hansen’s action is tantamount to a call for anarchy in support of Eco environmentalism.
Dr. Hansen has by his actions reduced NASA in general and NASA GISS in particular into nothing more than a biased environmental activist campaign endorsing criminal activity.
In my humble but angered opinion Dr. Hansen should be sacked, fired, as no not allowed to resign but to be dismissed with out merritt. By his actions he has displayed no respect for the position that he holds and is very obviously using the position to forward his own personal agenda. The position dictates that publicly he must be totally unbiased, completely impartial. Dr. Hansen is not unbiased nor impartial. His actions are proof positive of this.
Respectfully,
William Derryberry
b.derryberry@att.net
Bill Derryberry
Hardly anyone is saying that the planet didn’t get warmer during the 20th century. Well, there is that question of whether UHI has been correctly accounted for, and the puzzling lack of concurrence of ground based data with satellite data. The media, politicians and businesses have been responding to pronouncements by the alarmists. The extant issue is whether humans had anything significant to do with Global Warming and whether they can do anything about it. A rigorous challenge of the complete picture shows that they didn’t and they can’t.
Continued Global Warming would have been a good thing, except for the political dopiness, but lately it has certainly changed character and the temperature trend may have changed direction again. Look at the numbers provided by NOAA (the other agencies tell similar stories). According to NOAA data (not their agenda-biased, thanks to Hansen, narrative reports), for the first 7 months of 2008 the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 13.5% of the total linearized increase during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
But understanding global climate does not come from examining something so brief as the last decade, or even the last century. The ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming are Global Climate Models (aka General Circulation Models) or GCMs. The only existing exact, correct computer of global climate is the planet itself. The output of this computer is recorded as climate history.
Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback from water vapor does not exist.
Most of the infrared radiation energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules is immediately shared with the thousands of times more numerous nitrogen and oxygen molecules. In other words, nearly all of the absorbed infrared energy is thermalized. That is what makes the air feel warm. Calculations (see http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf ) show that half of the infrared energy from the surface that ever gets absorbed gets absorbed within 24 meters of the surface. The absorbed energy is then primarily carried up by atmospheric convection currents and radiated to space by clouds and other emitters. This mechanism is well understood by scientists that are knowledgeable in optical spectroscopy. The process is not yet adequately accounted for in the GCMs. These faulty GCMs are the ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming. Climate history refutes significant net positive feedback and thus refutes Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The multi-billion dollar government grants for ‘climate research’ depend for their continuation on ominous prediction of looming catastrophe requiring more study. A lot of people have been hoodwinked by this self-serving rhetoric. Many are eager to impose their will on others. Some are positioned to profit from it. An entire industry has evolved that exploits the fear of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The so-called consensus is primarily climatologists who stand to benefit from dire predictions and their followers. Over 31,000 qualified scientists and engineers have signed a document stating that human activity has had no significant influence on climate. The list can be seen at http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php . Compare this to the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
Group-think bias has corrupted the peer review process of articles related to climate. If the peer reviewers were not mesmerized by their incomplete computer programs and corrupted by the desire for job security there might be less bias.
No one can be sure where the average global temperature will go from here. According to Vostok ice core data it has been warmer than now four other times during the Holocene (the last 11,000 or so years) so eventual temporary further rise is not out of the question. However, the change in pattern since 2001, the recent downtrend, and continued quiet sun are all indicating that the planet is in for a continuation of the cooling trend. The huge heat sink of the oceans will cause the cooling to be gradual, as was the warming.
Words fail me this guy takes the cake, he should have been fired long ago.
Personally I don’t care if these morons get injured or killed, they’re making their own beds and deserve whatever befalls them.
I’d still like to see a transcript of Dr Hansen’s testimony. Any sources?
Wow guys, you want to fire James Hansen because he voiced an opinion! Hansen did his science, and he simply expressed the results of his scientific research in court, and the science just happened to be on Greenpeace’s side. What a traitorous crime!
Also, Watts, I understand you’re a meteorologist at KPAY-AM which is affiliated with Fox News. Are you sure you yourself don’t have a vested interest in denying global warming which you can’t separate from your day job? I mean, I’m guessing that if you change your mind and start agreeing with Hansen, you won’t be able to stay at KPAY-AM for long — sounds like a crystal-clear vested interest to me.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
REPLY: The difference here is that there are rules. Hansen can voice opinion like any other citizen. I have no problem with that. But when using a taxpayer funded position as a political soapbox, it’s a no-no. Frank, you are welcome to inspect the KPAY public file. And you’ll see that we run commercials from Gore’s WE campaign as well as “Flex your power” from the state office. We routinely have both sides of the issue on. Of course you wouldln’t know that, since you can’t hear the signal. But I’m sure you’ll now commence to write an appropriate article condemning me, as is your MO.
Since you bring up “inactivism”, besides complain about others, what have you done? I asked you a question once before about what you’ve done to promote cleaner energy and environment, such as solar power and driving an electric car as I do. Let’s hear it Frank. Show us your lack of inactivism. -Anthony
I believe any warming which might have occurred is within the margin or error, and is therefore negligible.
Jeff,
What if their antics kill an innocent? Will Hansen be partially responsible?
Mike
Interesting that Hansen is more than happy to fly to the UK to scare a bunch of women, but refuses to debate Lord Monckton (or anybody else.)
Real tough guy he is.
Wow! It appears James Hansen and the Earth Liberation Front \ the Monkey Wrench Gang ideology is the same.
If this is all true, then you are right Anthony, he needs to be fired for this. Burning down McMansions, Research buildings at the University of Washington, Destroying heavy equipment, burning down animal research labs, etc. has rightfully resulted in prison for those involved. Not even the Sierra Club has come to the defense of these radicals, now James Hansen has. This man has lost his ever loving mind.
I love freedom of thought and debate, but these people are not below destroying the careers of skeptics and now have reached a new low of defending criminal behavior to further their cause instead of simple civil disobedience.
This may be off topic, but as your site opened in my browser, my firewall notified me of a “malicious” attempt to access my computer. The name of the source listed on the pop-up was Greenpeace UK.
I don’t know how this would be connected to your site, but I thought you might like to know.
REPLY: Hmmm There is a link in my story to the Greenpeace UK website, perhaps that is the reason. Anybody else get this same problem?
Is Hansen a mainstream environmentalist? Just wondering.
Mike Bryant
[…] jury. This con man has been swindling whole countries for twenty years now, starting with our own. Anthony Watts is calling for NASA to fire him, though I don’t see that […]
Watts, so simply talking about science is now “political soapboxing”? While your blatant politicking is “science”?
REPLY: Frank – my name is Anthony. Courtesy please. Yes I did ask you before, perhaps you missed it. I’m asking again. What have you done? Actually we have several “green people” at the radio station. The morning producer for example. She’s very much into eco. I don’t know her position, nor the position of others on Hansen. I’ve never asked. The radio station also promoted and gave away an electric car in a contest recently. It was a Ford Think, which you may be familiar with in Europe since they are sold there.
Under the same general manager, when he was the GM of the TV station, in 1990 I did a nationwide project called Arbor Day-Weather week in conjunction with Earth Day, which had a goal of providing weathercasters nationwide with the ability to use computer graphics to show the need to plant trees to offset global warming. 174 TV stations participated and Arbor Day provided Colorado Blue Spruce Seedlings free of charge to any viewer that wrote in. Over 250,000 trees were planted that year as a result of that.
I suppose that you think it is impossible. But that’s the reality. My impetus at the time? James Hansen and his 1988 speech before congress.
So yes I once very much agreed with him. I don’t anymore because I don’t see data that supports the theory.
OK Frank your turn, what do you do? What have you done to promote energy conservation or other things?
Wow – this is a new low for Hansen.
I not only sent an e-mail to NASA but also sent e-mails to my representatives.
>>>>
NASA’s James Hansen is in charge of the GISSTEMP temperature record.
If Hansen thinks it is ok to vandalise property in order to reduce CO2 emissions why should we believe that he won’t also fudge the numbers at GISSTEMP? It seems pretty clear that GISSTEMP is consistently higher in its temperature reconstruction than HadCRUT, UAH or RSS. It is clearly an outlier.
One has to start questioning his ethics regarding what he is willing to do to advocate his beliefs.
When a supposed scientist is willing to cross the line of the rule of law then why would we trust him to provide un-biased scientific evidence. And when the science he does provide is significantly out of line with other scientific data why wouldn’t someone look into this? It is at the very least a public trust issue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
thanks,
Richard Patton
<<<<<<<<