James E. Hansen Ph.D.
Director
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Adjunct Professor
Columbia University Earth Institute:

An Urgent Call to Action:
Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation
January 17, 2007
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

Our Shared Concern
We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that
sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen throughout the natural
world, including a cascading set of problems such as climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species
extinctions, as well as the spread of human infectious diseases, and other accelerating threats to the health of
people and the well-being of societies. Each particular problem could be enumerated, but here it is enough to say
that we are gradually destroying the sustaining community of life on which all living things on Earth depend.
The costs of this destruction are already manifesting themselves around the world in profound and painful ways.
The cost to humanity is already significant and may soon become incalculable. Being irreversible, many of these
changes would affect all generations to come.
We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative. It addresses without
discrimination the interests of all humanity as well as the value of the non-human world. It requires a new moral
awakening to a compelling demand, clearly articulated in Scripture and supported by science, that we must
steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and
healthful environment. For many of us, this is a religious obligation, rooted in our sense of gratitude for Creation
and reverence for its Creator.
One fundamental motivation that we share is concern for the poorest of the poor, well over a billion people, who
have little chance to improve their lives in devastated and often war-ravaged environments. At the same time,
the natural environments in which they live, and where so much of Earth’s biodiversity barely hangs on, cannot
survive the press of destitute people without other resources and with nowhere else to go.
We declare that every sector of our nation’s leadership—religious, scientific, business, political, and
educational—must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies
required to address these worsening problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays.
Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day. We pledge to work together at every level to lead our
nation toward a responsible care for creation, and we call with one voice to our scientific and evangelical
colleagues, and to all others, to join us in these efforts

No, when the jury is out we do not need to act. The analogy is to a court case after the two sides have made their arguments but before the jury has returned a verdict (final decision). It may also express that we are waiting to see what the results of something will be.
I don’t even think the contralto (gravitationally-challenged female singer) is warming up yet.

Tony Edwards and Fernando Mafili’s suggestions are direct corollary’s to the behavior Hansen is encouraging. Maybe we should rise above it. Maybe we should point out where his logic leads us. It’s a judgement call.

He sure wasn’t subpoena’d. And the subject of who paid his expenses and whether he punched his time card before he left are still on the table.

Not exactly “free” speech if he did it on the US Gov’t’s dime.

And all this for the ‘crime’ of free speech.

Shame on you.

[REPLY: Those comments have been removed, thank you for pointing them out - I've been away from moderation most of today, had I seen them they would have been removed immediately. Since the comments have been removed at the source, they don't get repeated here in your own post.

NOTICE TO ALL: anyone that makes any types of these suggestions again will be banned- Anthony]

The juries out, folks, we need to act. Building new coal plants is a symbolic act in the face of the evidence. Climbing a tower and painting the name of the Prime Minister is an equally symbolic act, though an imaginative and brave one.

Dr James Hansen wasn’t explaining away the actions of people who destroyed or maimed an important piece of infrastructure, he was taking part in a gesture of commitment. And it is a gesture not towards the planet — no matter what it will certainly be fine in another million years or so — but towards our future on this planet.

There’s no God, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Shinto, Sun… who’ll step in and take care of us all. It’s up to us. Disparaging the actions of a few who think the time to act forcefully is now is certainly no help, another symbolic act if you will, clouding the issue with arguments of funding and loyalty. You should be proud you’ve got a moral man is such an important position, one who backs his science with words and actions.

“To: Michael D. Griffin
I’m particulary ashamed about NASA’s James Hansen behaviour in the Greenpeace trial in the UK. Not being an American, I’ve praised the many men who dedicate their lives to science. Till now.
There should be no place for activists in science. There should be no place for Hansen in NASA, whom clearly supports criminal acts on other’s infrastructure. And please remember today is 9/11.
I would appreciate a reply if Mr Hansen’s stays in office, explaining your view on why he should not be fired.”

Ecotretas

By simply traveling to the UK to testify, Hansen was implicitly supporting the protesters. Whether he stated they were justified or not, his action and subsequent testimony was a resounding endorsement of their actions. There is no other interpretation.

Here’s a worse example: A few years ago (perhaps 5 to 15 ??), a jury in Washington state acquited protestors who had blocked a train carrying nuclear warheads to the submarine base at Bangor. The reason? Because “they believed in what they were doing“. Can you imagine? How many actions could have that justification? Remember when French agents blew up a Greenpeace ship in New Zealand? I’m sure they believed in what they did… (It was ironic for Greenpeace, an organization that believes that the end justifies the means, to be hoisted on their own petard by an illegal act committed against them. Too bad that, unexpectedly, someone was in the ship and killed.)

Richard S Courtney (04:39:56):
Richard, that was a masterful letter – excellent, indeed!

You make disgraceful and unsupportable assertions in this post. Hansen did not ’side with vandalism’. He made no statement whatsoever regarding any judgment on the case. He testified as an expert witness and commented only upon his understanding of climate change, its attribution and its anticipated consequences. You may disagree with his judgment, by all means, but your assertion that he “defend[ed] vandalism in the name of a cause” is entirely without basis and is defamatory. Your demand that he should be fired for speaking the truth as he understands it to be is tantamount to witch-hunting, forwarded as it is by unsupportable allegations on your part regarding what he said. I suggest that you should read a transcript of the trial before you assert what you presume he said. Is that basic decency too much trouble to be taken when you have a ’cause’ of your own to pursue?

Frankly, shame on you.

REPLY: Flying across the Atlantic at the request of the defense pretty clearly says that he “sides” with them. He simply could have said no, and remained impartial. He made a choice. The choice was to help the Greenpeace defense team. That is called taking a side.

But, egad. I re-read the part you quoted, and the short part after that and I am embarrassed that I didn’t catch my typos before I sent it. That Diatribe makes me look like an Idiot…

What I’m sure those Greenpeace people don’t understand is that power stations like the one they damaged enable scientists to do work on finding safer ways of creating energy. They certainly can’t do their research in the dark!

And another thing. If all of these “awful, terrible, planet raping” power plants were shut down, we’d start burning wood to stay warm. And it’s not probable that everybody would survive the winters. So in order to save the earth and mankind by cutting our dependence on oil, coal, and gas, we would start chopping down the forests and freezing to death. Pretty ironic.

However, hardcore environmentalism may actually be a very serious mental disorder so I won’t say anything to offend them. I’m just that sensitive.

Reply: Let’s avoid ad hominem attacks. Thanks. – Anne

Apparently, all ethics are suspended to prevent greater harm to the environment…

Watt are the odds?

Oh please, do not fire Hansen. Making him martyr would hurt much more, than anything else: Science has already lost… haven’t anyone noticed?

Don’t worry about Dr. Hansens livelihood, Soros has that covered just fine. Also just consider the millions he will make on his “tell all” book royalties. The greens will buy lots and lots of books from this ecomartyr.
He will undoubtedly make more money outside of government service.

Mike Bryant