Hansen rakes it in

Disclosure Obtained by ATI Environmental Law Center Shows the Wealth Keeps Flowing for Dr. James Hansen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org

As it waits for the resolution of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit ( http://bit.ly/nnKpxS )  against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which seeks the outside employment permission records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center has received the belatedly filed 2010 public financial disclosure of the renowned director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:

• Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
• Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
• Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities

The travel reporting marked the first time Hansen detailed such “in-kind” benefits, which included apparent first-class travel for him and his wife on trips to Australia, Japan, and Norway. The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years, which he left blank and attested “none” in the space where he is required to report travel expenses taken as part of his outside employment, all in years in which he was busy with numerous paid outside activities of the same sort as he was in 2010.

“Now that Dr. Hansen’s outside income has come under scrutiny, we see a newfound attention to detail on forms where he reports about these sources,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “It also shows that Dr. Hansen continues to enjoy a healthy level of earnings that supplement – and for his curious exploitation of – the taxpayer-funded position he holds.”

As ATI detailed in its current lawsuit against NASA in federal court in Washington, Dr. Hansen admits this income began after he escalated his public – and often political – global warming advocacy, for which outside parties have spectacularly rewarded him.
ATI sued NASA because the agency refuses to make public any forms 17-60 – the application for permission for outside employment – by invoking the Privacy Act and calling their release “a clearly unwarranted violation’ of Hansen’s privacy.” These forms would demonstrate to the public and Congress whether NASA has signed off on Hansen’s lucrative activities, even though they raise serious questions under Ethics in Government Act rules. NASA’s withholding of the 17-60s is improper because Dr. Hansen, like other federal employees of the highest levels of pay and responsibility, waives certain privacy interests as a condition of his employment. Dr. Hansen is required to file the permission forms before most or all of his outside employment activities.

These requirements that cover Dr. Hansen include annual public financial disclosure that is vastly more detailed and personal than the one-page application for permission for outside employment and other activities. This is also true of senior government officials including Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, the President and Vice President.
ATI expects the media will share its curiosity about Dr. Hansen’s records at NASA, considering they have shown similar recent interest in others’ disclosures. For example:

• The Wall Street Journal‘s recent coverage ( http://on.wsj.com/oqypvi )  about Congress members’ public financial disclosures
• The Huffington Post on Thursday reported that some Democrats demand ( http://huff.to/oBI82s )  an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s filings and the propriety of his wife’s income
• The New York Times‘ recently published a (serially corrected) 2700-word piece ( http://nyti.ms/pbIpcC ) that highlighted how public servants are “restricted from using their positions ‘for personal gain’ or on matters in which they have a direct financial interest,” and how they “must avoid outside work that can pose a ‘time conflict,’ and ‘detract from [the employee’s] full time and attention to his official duties,’” as those rules “were designed to promote the notion of a full-time [employee].”

“That Dr. Hansen very well may be the country’s first millionaire bureaucrat — thanks to this flood of outside income since 2006 all clearly related to his public employment – raises similar questions,” Horner said. “Given his high profile and the significant role attributed to him in the climate debate, his and NASA’s own record on this front should generate at least as much interest.”

See Dr. James Hansen’s 2010 SF 278 disclosure form here: http://bit.ly/oVJX1e

About these ads

172 thoughts on “Hansen rakes it in

  1. The travel reporting marked the first time Hansen detailed such “in-kind” benefits, which included apparent first-class travel for him and his wife on trips to Australia, Japan, and Norway.

    Another “do as I say not as I do” hypocrite.

  2. Outside money that can unduly influence his scientific outlook.A potential corrupting influence that can cause damage to the institution he is a director of.To the field of science research.AND to those who holds a different view of the science.

    In any case he is a person who does not have a neutral base to work from.A person who has made it clear that he is mixing politics with science.To promote a particular agenda.

    Some would call it scientific advocacy.others will call it political propaganda.

  3. Wow, being a climate denier does not pay well enough, I think I’m going to switch to the alarmist side. That’s where the money is. Wahoo!

  4. I would like to know how many carbon credits he purchased from Al Gore’s companies to make all these trips. Even at $0.05 a credit he went through a lot of fossil fuel…
    Do I sound hypocritical?

    J2

  5. what a tangle web we weave when first we start to deceive. Or in this case, if you challenge CACC orthodoxy, you must be in the pay of big oil or something – basically you’re doing it for money. Ah, but now we see there’s a money trail to personal wealth (beyond grants, etc.) if you are a major proponent of CACC. Lovely. I’d imagine there may be some laws broken if he hasn’t properly filed those pesky 17-60’s.

  6. No wonder Hansen allows Gavin Schmidt to work on RealClimate during work hours!! He has a personal money machine to protect!

  7. It will be interesting to see the list of organizations who have given Dr Hansen “awards”.

    I think its a problem when an organization gives a government scientist an “award” for producing science that helps that organization to promote their particular agenda. Such payments could have a very corrupting influence. If such things are permitted, then why not allow organizations to give “awards” to politicians who vote in a particular manner? Where would it stop?

  8. This is clearly hyperbole: “That Dr. Hansen very well may be the country’s first millionaire bureaucrat”

    Most government bureaucrats approaching retirement age are millionaires because of pension plans. A defined benefit plan paying 60% of the final salary for someone making $60k is worth over $1M.

    It is funny that climate researchers have become like F1 drivers. You’re expected to show up, but most of your income comes from the outside sponsors.

  9. With all this outside activity, how can he possibly be doing the job for which he is paid? Why is he allowed to keep the money when he is clearly working on his employer’s time and using material gained during his work?

  10. This article is worth bookmarking as a quick answer to the Carbon Cultists who routinely chant “No scientist makes extra money from serving the holy cause of science. If you want to make that absurd claim, please cite just one example.” Okay, I will.

  11. @mpaul If you think that American politicians aren’t getting “awards” for that influence their votes, you’re not well informed.
    The issue of “follow the money” comes up all the time – I’m in complete agreement with full disclosure but it has to be for all involved, not just the ones you disagree with.

  12. To be honest, I don’t care how much Hansen rakes in from private sector donors (he can be as rich as he wants to be). It is the million dollar taxpayer-funded climate science budgets that he controls that I have a problem with…

    And, of course, his profligate use of fossil fuels to enrich himself and live a comfortable lifestyle is staggering hypocrisy. Maybe he thinks that airplanes fly using magical fairy dust…

  13. This explains his propensity to getting arrested: it gives him street creds.

    Seriously, if you get paid as much as he does, or wish to get paid as much as he did, then you must be upfront and a zealot. Straight from the Al Gore playbook.

    How much would be hear about Hansen if he weren’t raking it in? Does money talk or call?

  14. Do you remember the days when we thought of scientists as humble seekers after truth?
    Aahh … but that was in the good old days, 1980 BC ( Before Climatescience.)

  15. What in h*ll would Hansen be receiving prizes for? Biggest government shill? BIggest embarrassment? Biggest idiot? Biggest Fool?

    I guess, in retrospect there are a lot of awards out there for stupid.

  16. US Office of Government Ethics (5 CFR Part 2634)
    “The purpose of this report (Confidential Financial Disclosure) is to assist employees and their agencies in avoiding conflicts between official duties and private financial interests or affiliations. [. . . . .]
    Knowing and willful falsification of information required to be reported may also subject you to criminal prosecution”.

    Indeed.

  17. What’s with the between `$236,000 and $1,232,500′ figure cited in the article?

    Why is an accurate amount not provided, presumably in the documents filed by Mr Hansen?

    Potentially a $Million/plus per year above salary from `outside sources’ all of whom, the Bear assumes, furiously agree with the prophet of doom side to Mr H? Could a USA politician possibly get away with `booster funds’ of that magnitude?

    Love to know the identitiy of the organisations that provided so generously to Mr H’s big pile of cash. Bet they all love it when Mr H makes headlines by getting himself deliberately arrested and making faux-news around the world.

  18. “Jim, too. says:
    October 3, 2011 at 7:56 am
    I would like to know how many carbon credits he purchased from Al Gore’s companies to make all these trips. Even at $0.05 a credit he went through a lot of fossil fuel…
    Do I sound hypocritical?”

    Jim,
    I’d like to know if he is or was ever somewhat heavily invested, with Al Gore, in the climate exchange stock market while demonstrating against the evils of CO2.

  19. Why does my government more and more remind me of our 1980’s opponents in the east? It used to be that government agencies knew that the taxpayer was ultimately their boss and they would not protect employees if they had done wrong, now NASA is trying to protect Hansen. What changed?

  20. Please give the man credit, after all he is the inventor of the Hansenometer, a thermometer that can foretell temperatures thousands of years into the future.

  21. Jit says:
    October 3, 2011 at 8:40 am
    “This is an unbecoming witch hunt. Skeptics should be better than this.”

    No, it’s about a massive conflict of interest.

  22. The whole stinking “trough-at-our-expense” thing is disgusting. I suppose now, the parroted meme about Hero Hansen will arise, wherein he will be exonerated because of his “selfless service to society”. Bullfeathers.

  23. R Taylor says:
    October 3, 2011 at 8:43 am
    “Please give the man credit, after all he is the inventor of the Hansenometer, a thermometer that can foretell temperatures thousands of years into the future.”

    Even more important, he’s the inventor of GISTEMP, the only computer program that can cool the past.

  24. “This is an unbecoming witch hunt. Skeptics should be better than this.”

    I remind Jit that Hansen is the man who testified to Congress that anyone who disagreed with him should be tried for crimes against humanity. He wasn’t just being figurative in his language.

    Who is the witch hunter here?
    Hansen is not a witch to be hunted down, he is a ferret who needs to be ferreted out.

  25. I wrote yesterday of the power of Hansen – and this only goes further to prove my point. Hansen isn’t the elephant in the room anymore he IS the entire room. Everything else in it is Hansen’s, untouchable, immune from, and protected all the way up to the President of the US in my judgment. That’s power folks. Why quibble about Hansen’s outside earnings? However, his outside earnings are merely a symptom of the total corruption of that entire department – That’s the real scandal. And believe me here in the real world if I get myself arrested that many times I’d be fired on the spot. Moreover, if I’m in my 70s to boot – I would have been quietly farmed off to the senile pasture fifteen years ago. At my job here in the oil sands I cannot earn an outside income using a single skill I use here at my job, nor can I participate with anyone or any business even somewhat related to my job otherwise I’d to found in conflict of interest and fired on the spot. Trust me – within fifteen minutes I would be escorted off the premises by security. I’ve seen it happen. BUT that’s here in the real world. Then the real question is – how does Hansen constantly avoid getting dismissed? No one on my work site can venture off the reservation – yet he remains untouchable? How does he do it?

  26. Similar situation of John Kenneth Galbraith. During the 1980’s he was a “Full Professor” at Harvard. (Base salary, $70k.) He “earned” $4000 a speech, and typically had at least 50 speaches lined up per year. That means $270,000 (when it was worth about $600,000 a year now). Of course, his whole reason for existance was to promote every “wealth re-distribution” scheme on the planet. In the name of “helping the poor and down trodden”.

    I would just ask one thing (if I could have a fantasy wish) : To compare his Charitable giving, with say…a Ronald Reagon, or even a (remember: Quaker stock) Richard Nixon. It would be a marvelous contrast.

  27. Hmmm… raising bail after being arrested at protests doesn’t seem like much of an issue. Maybe it’s an “in kind” payment.

    I wonder if he did receive any “in kind” transportation costs to attend the protests. That would be passing strange, but it would mean that the protest organizers would be saying something to the effect of, “We need someone with a high profile to get arrested to give the cause a boost. We’ll pay your way and cover bail, if you’d be so kind as to attend and get arrested. Uh, hotel not included as the accommodations will be taxpayer funded and frankly, they’re a little, uh, spartan.

  28. Hansen isn’t the only one taking outside payola. Michael Mann was handed $1.8 million to study ‘mosquito vectors‘. But if anyone wanted to get a malaria study done they would go to either a biologist or an epidemiologist. Mann isn’t qualified. The cash grant was to keep him in line immediately following Climategate, and to show the “Team” where their bread is buttered.

    Mann also gets payola from the government.

    It is the unethical handing out of bribes like these that perpetuates the AGW scam.

  29. Jit says:
    October 3, 2011 at 8:40 am

    This is an unbecoming witch hunt. Skeptics should be better than this.
    ==========================================================

    Jit, its about graft. Hansen even wrote about it himself. I mentioned his receiving graft in one of my posts. His comments can be seen here.

    Hansen is getting paid a large amount of money for his advocacy and his position on the federal payroll. Yes, this is an unseemly conversation to have, but it is a necessary one. Whether or not this violates law, is only one question.

    “Few people have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” ———- Washington, George

    The fact is, Hansen is receiving 7 figures for his advocacy. At the very least, it needs acknowledged and weighted. Not from the perspective of his notions, but from the perspective that he is an employee of the federal taxpayer………. or is that only his part-time endeavor?

  30. Having endured years of having peer reviewed papers I have quoted as reasons to question the so called consensus climatology, be verbally put down with a retort “no sane person listens to that idiot, he’s not a scientist, he is a shill for big oil, big tobacco” “sold his soul for the corporate buck” with the same vicious mantra applied by warmist trolls on the many so called science blogs on the internet. Not only that, the campaign to discredit seemed to be well organized to intentionally “frame the debate” and imply corruption by these contrarians that didn’t accept the teams science meme or their self proclaimed dominance of Climatology.
    Its wearying to the point of it (the intentional framing of such scientists) becoming a standing in joke between scientists remarking that they hadn’t seen any of these huge cheques or monetary largesse that trolls claimed they should be getting.

    I hope that the senate calls Mr Hansen and his associates to account, for the good of science and setting the record straight. yes I would love to see that, and it should be demanded by those scientists that have had their reputations sullied because they dared to question and probe climate science.

    Boy I guess this will stir up an ants nest of protest from those who want to hide the decline of climate science.

  31. klem says:
    October 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Wow, being a climate denier does not pay well enough, I think I’m going to switch to the alarmist side. That’s where the money is. Wahoo!

    It would be the first documented case of a skeptic going alarmist. If the alarmist science won’t get ya, the money just might. Except you’re probably too ethical for that, which is part of the reason you’re skeptical.

    The reverse happens all the time, alarmists give up the money and go rogue, often becoming outspoken critics of the climate science herd mentality. At least they can sleep at night.

  32. It seems to go unnoticed or unacknowledged that the vast majority of Dr. Hansen’s income is in the form of prizes ($150k to 1,250k).(He also writes books, but this is not noted.) His work is regarded around the world by serious scientists and national agencies as ground-breaking and first class. By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.

  33. KenB says:
    October 3, 2011 at 9:38 am
    Boy I guess this will stir up an ants nest of protest from those who want to hide the decline of climate science.

    Please! You’re insulting ants. I think on the outside it’s a hornet’s nest, and on the inside, mostly Blatella germanica. Oh…silly me. Ants ‘toe the company line’, don’t they.

  34. @ various commenters

    “I can’t prove he’s wrong, but I can prove he’s bad, so you shouldn’t believe him.”

    I don’t like it when the other side play this card “Dr Z is in the pay of Big Oil… therefore you can assume he/she is lying.”

    Rise above, prove argument wrong.

    Maybe I’m naive – but if you can play like Corinthians and still win – now that’s cool.

  35. It’s the American way, no? Work hard and you deserve your wealth? Besides, being
    awarded prizes is kind of out of his control? If his contributions will result in avoiding
    or alleviating effects of future climate catastrophes, it is money well spent, methinks.

  36. I just don’t understand how a senior public servant would have the time to earn all that money on the side if they were doing their job properly. Has anyone asked for Hansen’s timesheets? Do his bosses insist that he not make money privately from his taxpayer-funded role?

    Where I worked, senior public servants were not allowed to accept private income (such as speaking fees) related to their public employment. What is the ethical and legal framework that allows Hansen to do this?

  37. By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.

    Its the work that demonstrates the extraordinary poverty of his thinking. And he’s making lots of money from it.

    He’s also making lots of money for financial speculators like George Soros and Jeremy Grantham who trade on volatility. Millions.

  38. johanna,

    The laws and regulations protecting the public from corruption by appointed officials are being enforced to the same extent as the laws against illegal immigration.

    Mikael, Elmer Gantry was a famous American con artist described in a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Credulous people believed him when he said he could make it rain. Just like credulous people believe James Hansen’s doomsday predictions.

  39. Hugh Pepper says:
    October 3, 2011 at 10:01 am
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. “By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________ Yeah Hugh, nobody has ever won a prize he isn’t deserving of.

  40. Mikael Pihlström says:
    October 3, 2011 at 10:20 am

    “It’s the American way, no? Work hard and you deserve your wealth?”

    Absolutely! That’s one reason why I love my country.

    “Besides, being awarded prizes is kind of out of his control?”

    He could donate his prize money to worthy charity. He can also refuse prizes if they would result in the appearance of a conflict of interest. Apparently he’s not concerned about that.

    “If his contributions will result in avoiding or alleviating effects of future climate catastrophes, it is money well spent, methinks.”

    OK. I have a recipe for a special herbal potion that, when its vapors are introduced into the atmosphere, has the power to alleviate the effects of future climate catastrophes (we can make this assessment in, say, 2060). If the government gives me a million dollars, I can cook some up. It would be money well-spent, methinks.

  41. Smokey says:
    October 3, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Mikael, Elmer Gantry was a famous American con artist described in a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Credulous people believed him when he said he could make it rain. Just like credulous people believe James Hansen’s doomsday predictions.

    OK, I started reading ‘Main Street’ long ago, but never finished it. Let’s reel back to the
    80’s and look at the con artist ‘prediction’.

    Hansen made a model … and compared to the relevant scenario B of his model actual
    temperatures are now lagging somewhat, but there is a clear rising trend.
    What was the skeptic ‘prediction’ back then and long after? A flat line with natural
    fluctuation. Hansen 1-0.

    But, the important lesson is that by doing we can actually learn. It is now widely
    held in Climate science that the sensitivity factor he used was to high. Science benefits
    from Hansen’s early model; Hansen’s work benefits from re-evaluation. This is how it
    should function. The skeptic approach of barking at everything identified as AGW is
    not achieving anything.

  42. “The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years…”

    Don’t be silly. He just gradually lowered the numbers on past forms like he does with past temperatures. If the scientific community doesn’t question Hansen’s ability to reduce temperatures from 80 years ago, why should they question his ability to reduce the amounts on his financial forms? Hmm, I wonder if he also refiles his income taxes with lower income amounts every year so he can get a refund. But don’t try this at home boys and girls. Only a god like Dr. Hansen can change the past.

  43. This helps demonstrate the principal problem experienced by the leaders of the alarmist cult in that they all have conflicts of interest. The survival of their comfortable lifestyles depends on distortions and lies, hence they have to distort facts and tell lies to survive.

    Tell the science the way it is and you get a boring answer, no need for any alarm or any further need for ‘climate scientists’.

    Therefore, you have to distort the science to achieve an interesting answer, thereby achieving alarm and future funding for ‘climate science’..

    Cynical? Look at the evidence provided by Gore, Hansen, Mann et alia.

    Trying to find a ‘climate scientist’ without this fundamental conflict of interest is totally impossible.

  44. Hugh Pepper,

    “By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.”

    The richness of his work? That’s rich!

  45. “Sorry, don’t know any E. Gantry. He posts a WUWT?”

    A fictional character played by the late Burt Lancaster in a movie. Elmer was a fire ‘n brimstone preacher whose life was a complete hypocricy.

  46. Hugh Pepper says:
    October 3, 2011 at 10:01 am

    It seems to go unnoticed or unacknowledged that the vast majority of Dr. Hansen’s income is in the form of prizes ($150k to 1,250k).
    ========================================================
    Hugh, I believe that was quoted in the story, and this (forgive the wording) is what is most alarming to me. He’s getting paid 7 figures for his advocacy. In the real world, we call this graft. Worse, he’s presenting his advocacy from the office of his paid position.

    Another thought, too….His work product is ours, not his.

  47. Doug Proctor said on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 am:

    “…Does money talk or call?”

    No, Doug, according to Bob Dylan, ‘Money doesn’t talk, it swears’. (‘It’s Alright Ma – I’m Only Bleeding’ 1964)

  48. Not big oil money then, but big alarmist money.
    Frighten the peasants to make them pay up seems to be the approach, nothing changes does it?

  49. Is there a typo?
    “Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches”
    Should read
    “Between $26,008 and $72,500 for hysteria speeches”

  50. Jit says:
    October 3, 2011 at 10:18 am

    @ various commenters

    “I can’t prove he’s wrong, but I can prove he’s bad, so you shouldn’t believe him.”

    I don’t like it when the other side play this card “Dr Z is in the pay of Big Oil… therefore you can assume he/she is lying.”

    Rise above, prove argument wrong.
    =============================================
    Jit, that isn’t the point. It isn’t about whether he’s wrong or right. (He’s been demonstrably wrong for quite some time.) It is rather, should entities be able to “gift” certain federal employees for the various positions they take on certain issues. Should a policeman receive gifts for doing his job in a certain manner? Should a politician receive gifts for the laws they pass? (No, but it is acknowledged that it does occur.) Or a judge in the way laws are interpreted? How then would Hansen’s gifts be any different. The discussion would be entirely different if he weren’t a federal employee. But he is one. And his testimony to congress has been fairly influential.

    He should take his accolades and monetary gifts into the private sector. Or, he should be a federal employee, but he shouldn’t attempt to do both.

  51. Mikael Pihlström says:
    October 3, 2011 at 11:03 am

    …………..The skeptic approach of barking at everything identified as AGW is
    not achieving anything.
    ======================================================
    Uhmm, no. We’ve accomplished much. In fact, the sensitivity factor would probably have not been addressed if skeptics hadn’t barked. Further your 1-0 seems a bit off. Hansen’s paper held for about 10-12 years……. for the next 10-12 years it fell apart.

    You think the hockey stick wouldn’t still be prominent were it not for the work of skeptics? Or investigation into clouds and their role? Or even acknowledgement of UHI? Or solar variations? Or glacial melt, or penguins, or the Amazon, or………. the skeptic approach has achieved much. The skeptic approach most importantly has stopped or at least slowed the world’s descent into the Malthusian totalitarian misanthropist abyss.

  52. Smokey, I forgot nothing.

    You’re just as welcome to say that Robert Ferguson of SPPI is worth every dime of the $300,000+ he was paid by tax exempt Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change the other year. Not bad going for a guy running a nonprofit with an address at a Virginia UPS Store.

  53. Looking at the Hansen SF278 declaration linked above, there is an entry which is real strange. Section I,
    Hansen appears to have a loan outstanding of between 250K and 500K, payable “on demand” to a John Jones of 123 J street Washington DC. I took this to be an address but I can not find J street in Washington. That is a lot of money to come up with “On Demand”.

  54. @Sean October 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Hmm, that is interesting. Among ‘inside the beltway’ types in Washington, J Street is used as a fictitious designation. J Street is famously absent on the Pierre L’Enfant Washington grid. Also, ‘John Jones’ and ‘123’ seem like the kind of thing that someone would use as a fictitious address. It could be that Hansen put this in as a holding spot intending to dig up the actual information, and then later forgot. Or, maybe he is just being stubborn and refusing to provide the name of the creditor.

  55. J Bowers says:
    October 3, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Smokey, I forgot nothing.

    You’re just as welcome to say that Robert Ferguson of SPPI is worth every dime of the $300,000+ he was paid by tax exempt Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change the other year. Not bad going for a guy running a nonprofit with an address at a Virginia UPS Store.
    ****************
    And Robert Ferguson is an employee of which government department?

  56. In my opinion, Hansen (who is 70) should be retired from his six figure government job, permitting him to do what he wants in the private sector. He can, for example, advocate for the destruction of U.S. jobs in industries he doesn’t like (e.g. oil and gas exploration/refinement, coal mining) along with his enviro-activist friends…

  57. Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:
    (note – as this is only a quick, cursory query, I don’t know if all these are current)
    1.) Principal Research Scientist at Univ of Ala / Huntsville
    2.) Senior scientist at Marshall Space Flight Center
    3.) Has testified before Congress
    4.) Expert and board member for the George C Marshall Institute
    5.) Affiliated with the Heartland Institute
    I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”

  58. J Bowers and D Marshall are conflating scientists who are a voluntarily part of nonprofit organizations with people like James Hansen, who is enriching himself on the taxpayers’ backs while deliberately breaking the law and taking payola. Hansen has turned the formerly scientific NASA/GISS into a climate alarmist blog that flagrantly alters the temperature record to fit its agenda.

    James Hansen is guilty of numerous ethics violations, and of repeated unlawful activity. Dr Spencer is not. That’s the difference.

  59. Can someone explain to me the difference in some scientist receiving money from say EXXON for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from BP – Shell for research, travel etc?

    Or. some scientist funded by say, Koch for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from say, Soros.org for “politicization of science”
    http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf [ page 143 ] “politicization of science ($720,000).”?

    IMO: Many climate scientists prostituted their cause – way before, so called skeptics.

  60. payola |pāˈōlə|
    noun
    the practice of bribing someone to use their influence or position to promote a particular product or interest : if a record company spends enough money on payola, it can make any record a hit.

  61. Reading the form, it appears he lists the actual amounts of the two prizes:

    The Sophie Prize, $100k
    Blue Planet Prize (Asahi Glass Foundation), $600k

  62. Can someone explain to me the difference in some scientist receiving money from say EXXON for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from BP – Shell for research, travel etc?

    I’d like to see (maybe it’s out there somewhere) a spreadsheet of known personal gifts from fossil fuel concerns to skeptics v.s. known personal gifts from Big Green to professional alarmists whose day job is climate scientist. Then we can have a separate spreadsheet for research grants. I think Judy Curry showed that the research grants weren’t even close.

    It’s kind of hard to do research of any kind without funding.

  63. Smokey — “J Bowers and D Marshall are conflating scientists who are a voluntarily part of nonprofit organizations with people like James Hansen, who is enriching himself on the taxpayers’ backs while deliberately breaking the law and taking payola.”

    Smokey, since when was Ferguson a scientist? He used to work on Capitol Hill as a Repub. chief of staff. As for your claim that Hansen’s breaking the law, well, you need to watch out for your own preposterous statements.

  64. D Marshall says:
    October 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:……….
    …..
    I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”
    ======================================================
    Sure, follow the money…….. but that’s not the point. James Hansen is a federal employee. He’s the top dog climatologist. His opinions carry official U.S. govt. weight. He’s receiving significant amounts of money for the opinions he expresses outside of what the U.S. pays him.

    I don’t mind scientists getting paid for the work that they do. They should be compensated. But advocacy groups shouldn’t be paying our top climatologist 7 figures. If he wants to leave the employ of the federal govt., fine, power to him and I hope him success. Would you think it proper for the Attorney General to receive gifts(in the form of millions of dollars) for particular interpretations of the law?

  65. mpaul says:
    October 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    @Sean October 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    The pair of you need to look closely at the form – would it have been clearer that it was an example of how to fill in the form if it was to John Doe?

  66. I saw the J street group but their mission is Arab/Israel issues. I also saw the J street cafe.
    The 10% interest rate declared seems really expensive, and it is surprising European eyes it is an on demand promissory note rather than a fix term loan. Is this common in the USA? If it was house purchase he should look at remorgaging. It dates from 1999, so it is too early for saving the world costs.

  67. @Billy Liar

    Billy, you’re right — its just an artifact of the form. I guess Hansen just sloppy about these sorts of things.

  68. D Marshall says:
    October 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    “Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:
    (note – as this is only a quick, cursory query, I don’t know if all these are current)
    1.) Principal Research Scientist at Univ of Ala / Huntsville
    2.) Senior scientist at Marshall Space Flight Center
    3.) Has testified before Congress
    4.) Expert and board member for the George C Marshall Institute
    5.) Affiliated with the Heartland Institute
    I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”

    ========================================================
    You didn’t finish. What was his income outside of his pay as an influential government employee? How much in prizes and speaking honoraria?

    I served as a board member for our homeowner’s association without pay and testified before our township government. That was all gratis on my part. Does serving on a board automatically mean one is raking in the bucks?

    You need some numbers ($$$) to go with your observations. That would help make (whatever) point you seem to be attempting to make with that list.

  69. Hugh Pepper,

    You are a parody, right?

    I hope so, because if you’re not you’re rather misguided – coming onto WUWT to lionise Hansen is one of the daftest things to do.

  70. @HR / Smokey I’ll say it again – Everyone who’s in the game has to come clean. Not all the motivations are financial although that’s probably the main driver. But some may do it simply because they think they’re right, or because of their religious beliefs ( or the lack thereof ) or for fame. Human beings are very capable of being both shallow and complex, sometimes simultaneously.
    Also, HR, are you claiming to be a completely neutral, disinterested 3rd party for your homeowner’s association? Would you have acted differently if you were paid?
    I don’t have numbers on anyone, pro-AGW or not, but until today Hansen’s weren’t known and that didn’t seem to prevent speculation on his motives.
    Let all who play show their cards – affiliations, conflict-of-interest and relevant research, etc.
    If the reseachers, speakers, decision makers, politicians want to be taken seriously, they should act openly or STFU.

  71. J Bowers says:
    October 3, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    As for your claim that Hansens breaking the law, well, you need to watch out for your own preposterous statements.

    Ummm….

    NASAs Hansen Arrested Outside White House at Pipeline Protest

    “James Hansen, head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was arrested outside the White House as he joined protesters in urging President Barack Obama to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s $7 billion pipeline.”

  72. Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes

    Prizes….yup. Our Illinois politicians also win prizes, you may ask any of the ones in prison about it. One governor in the pen, another waiting to be sentenced. Hansen would do very well in Chicago with his knack for scams.

  73. ***************************************************************************************************************************
    Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:
    • Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
    • Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
    ***************************************************************************************************************************

    I’m kind of confused here. If this information was obtained with the FIA from a form SF 278 which is filed annually why is there a range of numbers and not an exact amount? A 1 million dollar difference between the low and high value seems rather fishy to me.

    I’m no fan of Hansen, but this seems a little forced.

  74. And what is his objective opinion?

    I suspect Will Rogers wouldn’t mind: American has the best scientists money can buy.

  75. So, let me see if I can understand how this works,,,

    If I want to bribe government officials, I establish some kind of annual ‘prize’ for the government official that best advances my goal. I publicize it, and then I can choose who gets the ‘prize’.

    Let the rats fall all over each other to win my ‘prize’, and I bribe not only the winner, but everyone who strives to win it.

    Seems easy enough.

  76. @ Frank K.
    Oh, you mean civil disobedience like Rosa Parks did, and those gentlemen of the Enllightenment known as the Founding Fathers. Looks like Hansen’s in good company.

  77. Hansen’s acceptance of the
    Blue Planet Prize (Asahi Glass Foundation), $600k
    seems ok. This is an obviously “green” award. Other notable winners

    2004 Dr. Susan Solomon
    1993 Dr. Charles D. Keeling
    1992 Dr. Syukuro Manabe

    full list – there are links to the associated lectures – text, slides, and video.

  78. Robert Clemenzi says:
    October 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Hansen’s acceptance of the
    Blue Planet Prize (Asahi Glass Foundation), $600k
    seems ok.
    ====================================================
    I disagree. It doesn’t seem ok. It seems like payola for Hansen’s advocacy and his use of his official government position. Like I’ve stated before, I don’t begrudge Hansen the money. It simply isn’t proper for him to be accepting such gifts given his official capacity. This clearly creates a conflict of interests.

  79. “Roas Parks wasn’t emitting alarmist propaganda on the public’s payroll.”

    You could perhaps spend time more wisely questioning a certain Virginia AG’s spending of the public purse for his own political gain, the complete distortions of Hansen’s work given to publicly funded Congressional hearings, or even the Bush administration’s publicly funded distortions of Hansen’s work.

  80. This is another example of a Law that was passed specifically to prevent the type of abuse of an official position displayed by Hansen.

    However, the law is applied selectively in practice. The requirement to submit financial disclosure reports goes to a fairly low level in the Federal work force. I think is goes down to the GS-13 level, but definitely down to the GS-14 level.

    Now, if someone at the GS-13 or 14 level violated the law against profiting from your official position, let me assure you, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but someone at a higher level can violate the rules with impunity. In that way we are just like a third world country. Its this kind of thing that causes disrespect for the law.

    Another example is the prohibition for Federal employees to work for a contractor that was under their oversight in any way for at least a year after Federal employment in most instances and prohibited for a lifetime in other specific circumstances. Once again, the prohibition is strictly enforced for low level Federal Employees who couldn’t influence a contractor or contract if they wanted to, but is violated with impunity by higher level Federal Employees, usually political appointees.

    Hansen should be prosecuted and go to jail. This is a clear, straight-forward case of violating Federal Employee conflict of interest laws.

  81. He is a private citizen, your public exposure of what he earns is disgraceful and is nothing more than an admission of failure on your behalf that you have lost the debate on Science and are now moving into attacking the person. epic fail.

  82. I wonder if Hansen was one of Solyndra investors that gets paid before us taxpayers?

  83. Robert Clemenzi says:
    October 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm
    Hansen’s acceptance of the
    Blue Planet Prize (Asahi Glass Foundation), $600k
    seems ok.

    I think what you are missing is that the money is awarded by the foundation of a commercial solar company who has given the award to scientists whose work directly or indirectly advances the commercial interests of the commercial solar company (Asahi Glass Company). I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Asahi foundation offering a science prize. But I think its improper for a government official to take this sort of money. If Hansen were not a government official and was simply a scientist working in the field, then I would have no problem with it.

    Hansen, as a government official, influences Administration policy on solar –> Administration provides subsidies to solar industry –> Solar industry provides payment to Hansen.

    Susan Solomon of NOAA also received payments from Asahi under the scheme.

    How would this be any different from the pork industry offering a prize to an EPA official who managed to write a report that got the federal government to provide subsidies (for example) to the pork industry?

  84. criminogenicjamesc says:

    “He is a private citizen, your public exposure of what he earns is disgraceful…” &etc.

    Wrong. James Hansen is a public figure who is repeatedly in the news by personal choice. He writes books. He gives interviews. He has himself arrested repeatedly.

    And because of his public position in government, his pay and payola are in the public record.

    You may retract your incorrect comment at any time.☺

  85. criminogenicjamesc says:
    October 3, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    He is a private citizen, your public exposure of what he earns is disgraceful and is nothing more than an admission of failure on your behalf that you have lost the debate on Science and are now moving into attacking the person. epic fail.
    ===================================================================
    Uhmm, no, no he’s not a private citizen. He works for the federal government. What is an epic fail is the blatant hypocrisy being exercised by Hansen apologists. They’ll go to any extent possible to try and tie a skeptical scientist to some perceived corruption by who pays their salaries. But, when an influential government employee is shown to take graft you want to howl about private citizens? Go skip, sis. It’s people like you that causes such pervasive cynicism about our government. You people don’t just expect it and accept it, you defend it!

  86. It’s not the lack of ethics here; it’s the arrogance that ethics don’t count anymore. It’s a very worrying behavioral trend wherever you look these days – it’s not OK for others to ignore ethics but it’s OK for me to seems to be the way things are going. And I suggest D Marshall do some digging and report on Dr Spencer because i too would like to know just where the money is going and if Spencer has something to hide then I for one want to know about it. Don’t be lazy D Marshall – start digging. I genuinely look forward to hearing back from you.

  87. criminogenicjamesc says:
    October 3, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    He is a private citizen,
    =============================================

    Good grief…..you don’t even know where the man works or what his job is

  88. J Bowers says:
    October 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    @ Frank K.
    “Oh, you mean civil disobedience like Rosa Parks did, and those gentlemen of the Enllightenment known as the Founding Fathers. Looks like Hansen’s in good company.”

    Hey, I’m just the messenger…you seemed surprised that someone would dare say that Hansen’s done something illegal. Just wanted to set the record straight. Of course, I could have also mentioned his testifying on behalf of the the English Powerplant Vandals/Thugs.

    Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions ‘justified’ because of ‘emergency situation’

    “James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, is well known for rattling his nation’s political establishment. This week, the climate scientist was in London, UK, to testify on behalf of activists who defaced a coal-fired power station in Kent.”

    And for the record, I find your analogy between Hansen’s actions as an eco-nut and Rosa Parks’ stand for civil rights thoroughly disgusting…

  89. @4eyes & Smokey
    If I had access and friends in high places, I would dig and report on all concerned. As I’ve stated numerous times, I want to see all the cards of all the players on the table and an end to innuendo, speculation and hearsay.
    Regardless of who is right or wrong about the science, the timeline or the outcome, the issue is too important to us and future generations to continue this pointless game of alarmism and denial, of policticking and chicanery to drag on for decades.
    We need to know, to understand and to, if need be, to act.

  90. old construction worker says:
    October 3, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    “I wonder if Hansen was one of Solyndra investors that gets paid before us taxpayers?”

    Unfortunately, I don’t think the taxpayers are going to get one dime of the $500 million back. Maybe we can sell the Disney-whistling Solyndra robots on eBay…

  91. Hugh Pepper wrote;

    “By demonizing him, you deny your readers and correspondents (sic) the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.”

    WHAT………. “the richness of his work” You are being sarcastic right ???

    He made predictions 30 years AGO (three full decades) that have not come true unless you broil, fricassee, steam, fry, boil, roast, bake, grill and finally COOK the books. Said books that he is the chief accountant of.

    Seems the only “richness” going on here is from my pocket to his as a US taxpayer, and from dupes who pay to hear his alarmist DRIVEL………

    Sounds like a crime here, Methinks “Dr.” Hansen should be calling some good attorney’s about January of 2013.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  92. @D Marshall says:
    October 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    “@HR / Smokey I’ll say it again – Everyone who’s in the game has to come clean.”
    [snip]
    The players I’m paying for, yeah. No argument from me.

    “Also, HR, are you claiming to be a completely neutral, disinterested 3rd party for your homeowner’s association?”

    Nope. My interests are aligned with my neighbors’ interests. My point was that That they didn’t have to pay me to align my interests with their interests..

    “Would you have acted differently if you were paid?”
    Nope, but it sure would have been nice. Being a volunteer board member just about anywhere is a thankless task. All the time spent, all the headaches, all the complaining of what should have been done (except “don’t ask me to do it”); a few bucks would have taken out some of the sting. Volunteer Board Member is not a good career choice. You mentioned Dr. Spencer served on a couple of boards and didn’t specify whether it was as a volunteer (which a lot of people do – e.g. myself) or for expenses or for booty beyond the wildest imagination. I don’t know. You tell me.

    I mentioned that you didn’t finish the job. Show me the money Dr. Spencer may or may not have received so we can all speculate, Otherwise I don’t quite get your point as it relates to the information about Dr. Hansen as given in the posted article. It was that simple.

    BTW, you forgot to mention book income. They have both written books and received income from those books. They both put in the time writing them at a risk of no worthwhile return so they both deserve any returns they get. They’re selling their respective POV and I’d imagine the market will indicate which POV is more compelling.

    My speculation re Dr. Hansen in one of the earlier comments? I didn’t see it detailed out in the main article so I wondered if he was given travel expenses for attending the various protests. That would be passing strange. If OTOH it’s out of his own pocket, the travel and bail expenses seem to be well within his means, eh?

  93. Surely no one thinks Dr. Hansen has been in any way motivated by money? That would be akin to saying Al Gore’s getting filthy rich off AGW was anything but a happy coincidence. No! It’s the oil company money that corrupts. Green money is different. Green money is pure. Green money does not corrupt; it ennobles its recipient.

  94. I never knew being a scientist could be so lucrative–I surely don’t make that kind of money. But then, my work is based on analysis of data to form hypotheses, not forming hypotheses and desperately massaging the data to fit.

    Guess I’ll never be a rich scientist.

  95. D Marshall says:

    “If I had access and friends in high places, I would dig and report on all concerned. As I’ve stated numerous times, I want to see all the cards of all the players on the table and an end to innuendo, speculation and hearsay…”

    Lack of transparency is the problem, isn’t it? It’s always been the central problem in the ongoing coverup. The money is just a symptom. It’s the smoke, and that means there’s a fire.

    Scientific skeptics are willing to debate, and to share their data, methodologies, code and metadata. But the “Team” hides out from debate and refuses to share their data and methods, because they cannot be replicated and arrive at the same scary results. They refuse to follow the scientific method because it would expose their mendacity. The Climategate emails exposed them for the true scoundrels they are.

    The only way transparency can be forced is through legal action, because the alarmist crowd hides out, with Algore, James Hansen and Michael Mann setting the cowardly example. They take pot shots from tightly scripted interviews, but they never put themselves in the position of having to answer unscripted questions, or having to share information requested by other scientists. What does that tell you?

    If you know anything at all about human nature, you know that those are the actions of devious charlatans, not honest scientists. So yes, let’s get it all out in the open. In pre-trial depositions and discovery – which is why that dishonest gang doesn’t actually file lawsuits over their trashed reputations, they merely threaten. In a trial, the truth would come out.

    So let’s get everything out on the table. The “Team” has plenty to hide, and I want to have folks see what they’re so desperately hiding.

  96. Wow – can’t believe the support of Hansen by certain folks.

    Comments like this one: “Oh, you mean civil disobedience like Rosa Parks did, and those gentlemen of the Enllightenment known as the Founding Fathers. Looks like Hansen’s in good company.” are they type of statement terrorists and anarchists use to justify their deeds. Maybe the writer believes the US should still be a British Colony?

    There are lots of parallels in history. This is not a road we should examine too deeply and even my comment on it perhaps is deserving of being snipped.

    There is a fine line between civil disobedience and insurrection. Arab spring to AGW winter.

    Rosa Parks was being ethical. Maybe, but only maybe, Hansen thinks he is, but history will make the final judgement.

    Kind of like David Suzuki. He has certain ethics, but in interviews and his autobiography he says he only stayed in Canada because of the money for certain work or he would have moved to the US.

    As always, follow the money.

  97. @Smokey Absolutely, lack of transparency is the problem but I don’t support a witch hunt against one “Team” or the other. It’s all in for all of them. And, I’m not limiting this to the researchers, as I want this of the politicians and the movers and shakers behind the curtains.
    There was a point made further up the discussion about Hansen being the “top dog” climatologist.
    That may be true but his influence is quite limited compared to a member of Congress. He can’t sponsor a bill nor filibuster one and his supposed wealth is a rounding error on the balance sheets of the truly wealthy people and corporations whose lobbyists deck the halls of power.

  98. From here is this hilarious statement:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/#comment-758523

    “He is a private citizen, your public exposure of what he earns is disgraceful and is nothing more than an admission of failure on your behalf that you have lost the debate on Science and are now moving into attacking the person. epic fail.”

    bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    He is the DIRECTOR of Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

    He had made several testable temperature predictions from 1988 onward and has been wrong EVERY TIME!

    He is an adviser to Al $$$ Gore.Who has made incredibly stupid statements.Some that has been attributed to James Hansen.

    He has been involved in leftist politics and environmentalist causes.Sometimes they are strongly intertwined.

    He has tried to ferment violent protests.Writes a fear mongering book.

    Here is but one example of his overt activism.That is based on overt and stupid propaganda.

    Hansen of NASA Arrested in Coal Protest

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/

    He has definitely benefited from his activities.

  99. You can’t deal with the likes of Hansen without taking some drastic action. Several organizations are well beyond the hope of reform so they should no longer be funded by the US federal government. Here is my prioritized list:

    1. The United Nations.
    2. The EPA.
    3. The US Department of Education.
    4. The Food and Drug Administration
    5. The Department of Agriculture.
    6. The Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

    Most likely some of you could make a better list, so let’s hear from you.

  100. Rosa parks was arrested for something that was illegal but constitutional. Hansen’s antics aren’t in the same category.

    Jeez. :roll:

  101. Wonder if Hansen received any ” awards” for getting arrested several times?

    And to J. Bowers, who equated Hansen with Rosa Parks, your analogy is about as pathetic as Gore’s when he compared Global Warming sceptics to people who don’t think smoking causes cancer.

  102. It’s well known Great Global Gruesome Greasum have many different grades of lubricants like their Big Oil synthetic and now they gush out with The Good Oil. Well not exactly a gusher, sometimes you have to extract it by putting it under the pump of course.

  103. mpaul says: October 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm “I think what you are missing is that the money is awarded by the foundation of a commercial solar company who has given the award to scientists whose work directly or indirectly advances the commercial interests of the commercial solar company (Asahi Glass Company). ”

    You seem to misunderstand completely. Please read:

    http://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/doc/prof/2010profile-eng.pdf

  104. Yes, the “examples” – with an “S” on the entry above applies to two lines. Never seen example responses embedded in the replies on a form it that way. My bad.

  105. Who knows perhaps Hansen really earned that money? I mean a lot of complaints are pouring in but have we also asked ourselves if “are we there to know what really happened?” And he is the scientist who predicted global warning in an early stage. We must also remember the benefits of that.

  106. Dr. Hansen has started to receive cash awards and prizes in significant amounts only in the last decade or so. He has been studying climate change for getting on to 40 years. When he first started to publish his findings, he was met with skepticism on the part of his colleagues — not hostile skepticism, but the true kind, the kind that actually “looks” at a thing — and the novelty of his findings was not such as to attract grant money. His government research budget, in fact, was slashed several times, by administrations that did not like where his research was going. To argue that his views — which took their general form early in his research — were shaped by the munificence of the dispensers of grant money and the allocators of budgets is nonsense.

  107. I’m stunned that some would defend a full-time government employee’s ability at generating extra income, principally off the back of his government job. This is something you would expect to happen in Greece.
    Years ago I was involved in research with the Geological Survey of Canada. Some of those researchers have retired now and have a very decent pension (which they should). I would be upset to learn that they too were double dipping into the private trough while being paid full-time by the public trough while here I was, working my butt off and no pension and the end of the road.
    This turns public service into a complete joke. Fire the guy I say. It is unethical – full stop.
    Hey if the guy made $1 million playing the piano at an after hours bars there wouldn’t be a case.

  108. Steve from Rockwood,

    The first question is whether Hansen has violated any NASA regulations in accepting the awards that he has. If he has, it’s an issue between him and his employer. It’s worth noting that he has accepted nothing sub rosa, unlike a number of “disinterested scientific experts” whose bills are being paid by the fossil fuel industry.
    But, to say that his scientific research was, from the beginning, conducted in anticipation of cash awards from environmental groups at some time decades in the future – this is quite a stretch.
    Hansen is both a scientist and an idealist. Let’s argue about whether his science is sound or his ideals are reasonable and humane.
    But his motivation, IMHO, is above reproach. A guy nearly 70 years old who goes out and gets himself arrested because he thinks that the kind of world his grandchildren will spend most of their lives in is at stake — this guy is for real.

  109. I guess it all depends upon your tolerance for public corruption, or tolerance for the appearance of public corruption. IMO, if this isn’t illegal or unethical, it should be.

  110. Jesse Fell says:
    October 4, 2011 at 1:54 am
    Dr. Hansen has started to receive cash awards and prizes in significant amounts only in the last decade or so. He has been studying climate change for getting on to 40 years. When he first started to publish his findings, he was met with skepticism on the part of his colleagues — not hostile skepticism, but the true kind, the kind that actually “looks” at a thing — and the novelty of his findings was not such as to attract grant money. His government research budget, in fact, was slashed several times, by administrations that did not like where his research was going. To argue that his views — which took their general form early in his research — were shaped by the munificence of the dispensers of grant money and the allocators of budgets is nonsense.

    It’s true that money usually flows to somebody who already supports the cause. But you missed the point entirely. Hansen is not a low-level employee at GISS. He leveraged his official position for personal profit.

  111. More Soylent Green,

    How did Hansen “leverage his position for personnel profit”? Did he make the rounds of environmental groups soliciting awards, etc? It’s calumny to say that he did without proof.

  112. @Jesse Fell:

    Is Hansen a policy-maker at GISS, or have influence on policy?

    That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes’ again. And that’s why he shouldn’t accept gifts or be wined and dined while he is still a public employee. This isn’t even ethical behavior for Congress.

    If Hansen’s behavior is not illegal or unethical, it should be.

  113. What’s with the error bars in this post?

    • Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
    • Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;

    Sounds like the IPCC!

  114. Jesse Fell says:
    October 4, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Hansen’s motivation is not the question here, and his motivation does not determine whether he did anything wrong.

    Since Hansen is a public employee and I am a tax-paying American citizen, this is not just between Hansen and his employer.

    If Hansen were a private citizen or privately employed, there would be no conflict.

    Whether or not other scientists have received gifts or funding from other sources does not matter, but is a common excuse used by children and law-breakers the world over.

  115. Kim Pierce says:
    October 4, 2011 at 1:28 am
    Who knows perhaps Hansen really earned that money? I mean a lot of complaints are pouring in but have we also asked ourselves if “are we there to know what really happened?” And he is the scientist who predicted global warning in an early stage. We must also remember the benefits of that.
    =====================================================================
    Some of would say look at the waste that it caused – sucking funds from real projects for third world countries that could have provided safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, health aids, education and actual pollution control that would actually help people instead of funneling billions down a rat hole. My company worked in third world countries for years and the “global warming” business has sucked tremendous amounts of resources out of the system that could have been used much more effectively in the other areas noted. He selfishly looked after himself and his pet project to the detriment to everything else. Send him to Somalia or Ethiopia and have him live in hut made of manure and sticks for a week, where he has to walk 30 km to get clean water as see if his priorities change. You don’t care about pretty satellite pictures and unproven theories when you are struggling to live.

  116. Wayne Delbeke,
    Hansen IS worried about the people in the mud huts. It’s precisely people like that who will are being hurt the most by climate change. They don’t have a margin of security to fall back on when the droughts come, or the floods.
    The idea that billions of dollars have been diverted from aid to such people, in order to fund Dr. Hansen’s research, is in need of substantiation, shall we say.

  117. I added up the numbers. My eyes aren’t want it used to be but I got 730,395.00 * in speeches and prizes and 54,643.00 in travel expenses including 25,800.00 for either his spouse or somebody “to accompany me”. One of the travel expenses was to travel to the UK to testify in court on those arrested vandalizing the coal plant.

    Honestly I’m not sure there is anything wrong with this but I’m saving the link for the next time I get the argument that Big Oil is funding the skeptics. I suggest you do the same.

    http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ATI-NASA-Hansen-SF-278-2010.pdf

    * He included 75.00 in expenses here. I don’t know why they aren’t on the expense sheet but it’s not enough to worry about.

  118. Jesse Fell says:
    October 4, 2011 at 6:19 am
    ===========================================
    I disagree with everything you say (and I am not questioning Hansen because of his science).

    1. This receiving cash awards stuff for what you do as a government employee – seems to me to be a way around the system, to reward people with cash in a way they can legally receive it.
    2. I think any government employee should not be able to receive “gifts” for the work they do. These awards are gifts. I used to run into trouble trying to take government employees out for lunch when I was working on a contract they were paying me for. To establish an organization that turns around and awards them $600,000 for the great work they do? Come on. Is Hansen solely responsible for all the climate change work at NASA? Did he share his prize, or donate it over to NASA (which would have been the right thing to do)?
    3. Just because the guy is 70 years old doesn’t make him above anything. I’ve met old people who are totally corrupt. Judge Hansen by what he says and by what he does. For a guy to be so passionate about climate change and then turn around and accept $600,000 in awards while the climate industry complains of big oil funding on the denier side. Come on people. This isn’t right.
    4. Jesse – if you really don’t see a government employee receiving cash awards directly for the work he does through his government in cooperation with others who are also just as dedicated as he is AS A PROBLEM – well, I give up.

  119. Frank K. — “Hey, I’m just the messenger…you seemed surprised that someone would dare say that Hansen’s done something illegal.”

    Here? I’d be surprised if a thread about Hansen did not contain comments about him doing something illegal.

    J. Felton — “And to J. Bowers, who equated Hansen with Rosa Parks, your analogy is about as pathetic…”

    I’d have thought it pretty obvious my point was that civil disobedience is a great American tradition, which has led to positive change in many instances in American history. If you call Hansen a criminal, then you need to call Rosa Parkes and Thomas Jefferson criminals, too (and many did at the time).

    J. Felton — “…as Gore’s when he compared Global Warming sceptics to people who don’t think smoking causes cancer.”

    If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and uses the same PR manual and methods as a duck… it’s a duck.

  120. Dude, my man is 70 and has no declarable investment assets to speak of (granted he has a government pension coming) . Let him take the cash – it is money poorly awarded and the more reactionary groups give to guys like this, the less they’ll have to brainwash kids with.

  121. Steve from Rockwood,
    James Hansen began to receive awards only at the end of his career, years after the work for which he is known was finished. I’m not sure I see the mechanism by which his acceptance of these awards would be able to imbue his work in decades gone by with retroactive bias. The idea that he began to do research on climate change forty years ago, in the hopes of receiving the Dan David Prize in 2007, does not seem to me to be serious enough to merit consideration.
    If he violated his terms of employment in accepting these awards, he should be held accountable for that. If he did not violate his terms of employment, it is hard to see how he can be accused of betraying the taxpayer by failing to live up to undefined and supernumerary ethical standards.
    In the meanwhile, the leaves on the tree outside my window have been falling off, dry, brown, and curled in upon themselves. The local meteorologists say that this is because it has been staying warm at night; cold nights are required to produce the calendar-perfect foliage that we look forward to here in New England. And according to the computer models cdreated by “corrupt” scientists such as James Hansen, one of the first ways that global warming will manifest itself will be — warm nights.

  122. Many of the commenters just don’t get it.

    It is illegal for a Federal Employee to take compensation for speaking on matters related to his or her official position. You cannot receive money from any private source for anything connected to your official position. You cannot receive a gift valued at more than $25. You cannot even accept a free meal if you think its value is more than that.

    Lets say you are invited to the Lions Club to speak about something related to your official capacity, and the meeting includes a meal. You actually have to find someone to pay for the meal, and force them to take it, even if they refuse payment. I myself have been in numerous embarrassing situations like that. It may seem unreasonable to some. but its the law. Period.

  123. S. Basinger,
    As I wrote, if he broke NASA regulations, he should be held accountable. More so, if he broke Federal Law.
    So, why hasn’t be been fired or prosecuted, or both?

  124. All I can say is that the world seems awash in awards, prizes and honor aria; and, as usual, they are bestowed unreasonably on particular individuals–generally those well past their prime, and sometimes people who did relatively little in their prime. Around the mid 1990s I recall a letter in the American Journal of Physics where the writer was complaining about some prize being offered Carl Sagan. The writer asks is their no one else they can give this prize too? Things like this repeat. I cannot imagine attending a talk by Hansen.

  125. Jesse Fell says:
    October 4, 2011 at 6:42 pm
    S. Basinger,
    As I wrote, if he broke NASA regulations, he should be held accountable. More so, if he broke Federal Law.er superiors have
    So, why hasn’t be been fired or prosecuted, or both?

    Hansen’s NASA supervisors and others have recommended and asked for Hansen to be fired and prosecuted for criminal violations of the Hatch Act. His former NASA supervisor, John Theon, said:

    “I have publicly said I thought Jim Hansen should be fired,” Theon said. “But, my opinion doesn’t count much, particularly when he is empowered by people like the current president of the United States. I’m not sure what we can do to have him get off of the public payroll and continue with the campaign or crusade. I think the man is sincere, but he is suffering from a bad case of megalomania.”

    Theon described how Sen. John Kerry and his wife directed money to Hansen in violation of Federal law.

    “Yes, that is absolutely illegal,” Theon said. “There is a law called the Hatch Act, which prevents any civil servant, including Jim Hansen from endorsing any political cause publicly and he certainly did that. That alone is grounds for firing, and if not imprisonment or fine.”

    Theon continued, saying:

    “People have complained to me, the inspector general of NASA, and they say because of Hansen’s very powerful political connections, it has had no effect to date,” he said.

    See the full article from 2009:

    Former Hansen Supervisor Calls for the Global Warming Alarmist’s Dismissal: Retired NASA atmospheric scientist John Theon tells ICCC that Hatch Act is grounds for media darling’s firing. By Jeff Poor, Business and Media Institute; Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:56 AM EDT

    http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2009/Former_Hansen_Supervisor_Calls_for_the_Global_Warming_Alarmists_Dismissal.html

    This article and other news articles paint a picture in which Hansen defied the rest of the NASA policymakers to repudiate the official NASA findings and substitue Hansen’s own propaganda with an impunity provided by Al Gore, John Kerry, and other leading Democrats in the U.S. Congress, the Carter Administration, Clinton Administration, and the Obama Administration. NASA’s own Inspector General has been sidelined by political obstruction of justice. Science is being subverted by a broad political cabal in which Hansen serves as a useful political tool.

  126. Max Hugoson says:
    October 3, 2011 at 9:06 am
    This brought a smile to my face, John Kenneth Galbraith earned $270,000 p,a,“helping the poor and down trodden”.
    It reminded me of a 60’s MAD Magazine feature on “Phony Joany” (Joan Mitchell) who used to sing about poverty at $10,000 a show.

  127. D. Patterson,
    The first point to make is that whether James Hansen violated the Hatch Act has no bearing on the question of the validity of his scientific research. We don’t dismiss Francis Bacon’s writings on the nature of science because Bacon was a scoundrel; neither should we dismiss Hansen’s research because we happen to believe (as I do not!) that he is a scoundrel.
    About the Hatch Act (http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm), the question seems to be whether Hansen is a “less restricted” or “further restricted” Federal employee.
    “Less restricted” federal employees can engage in most forms of political advocacy, including making speeches on the issues and in support of candidates in partisan elections. All Federal Employees are less restricted except those working in a list of agencies that the Act provides; NASA is not one of these agencies. Thus, Hansen is a less restricted federal employee, and it is perfectly legal for him to engage in public advocacy of particular causes.
    Further, receiving awards for one’s lifetime achievement are not on the list of activities prohibited for less restricted federal employees.
    And, for whatever it’s worth, John Theon was never Hansen’s boss or supervisor at NASA. The director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC (Goodard Space Flight Center), who reports to the NASA administrator. Theon was never in this line of command.

  128. Jesse Fell says:

    “The first question is whether Hansen has violated any NASA regulations in accepting the awards that he has. If he has, it’s an issue between him and his employer.”

    It’s not a matter of violating “NASA regulations.” Hansen violates the federal Hatch Act every day. Hansen’s ultimate employer is the taxpaying American public. So let’s bring on this “issue” between the thoroughly corrupt James Hansen and the common working folks, who are unwillingly forced to fund his anti-American, false alarmism and self-serving payola scam to its legal conclusion, and let the chips fall where they may.

  129. Jesse Fell says:
    October 5, 2011 at 4:11 am
    D. Patterson,
    The first point to make is that whether James Hansen violated the Hatch Act has no bearing on the question of the validity of his scientific research. We don’t dismiss Francis Bacon’s writings on the nature of science because Bacon was a scoundrel; neither should we dismiss Hansen’s research because we happen to believe (as I do not!) that he is a scoundrel.

    That is a false argument, because much of his research is dismissed by virtue of its all too obviously impossible and failed forecasts. Hansen’s forecast for the inundation of Manhattan Island, for one example, has long ago come and gone past. At this point in time much of Hansen’s forecast work is a dismal joke.

    About the Hatch Act (http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm), the question seems to be whether Hansen is a “less restricted” or “further restricted” Federal employee.
    “Less restricted” federal employees can engage in most forms of political advocacy, including making speeches on the issues and in support of candidates in partisan elections. All Federal Employees are less restricted except those working in a list of agencies that the Act provides; NASA is not one of these agencies. Thus, Hansen is a less restricted federal employee, and it is perfectly legal for him to engage in public advocacy of particular causes.
    Further, receiving awards for one’s lifetime achievement are not on the list of activities prohibited for less restricted federal employees.

    Although Hansen’s position is less restricted in certain respects, he is nonetheless liable to many of the other restrictions upon any and every Federal employee. Theon and others clearly find Hansen in blatant violation of these Federal employment restrictions despite the denials of Hansen and his political sponsors.

    And, for whatever it’s worth, John Theon was never Hansen’s boss or supervisor at NASA. The director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC (Goodard Space Flight Center), who reports to the NASA administrator. Theon was never in this line of command.

    That is what James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt claim, but it appears their claims are deceiving and false, according to Theon and others.

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]
    Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:01 PM
    To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
    Subject: Response to Jim Hansen’s e-mail
    Marc,
    It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This
    just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory.
    I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC
    and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37
    and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
    The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later
    became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and
    evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to
    do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked
    him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied.
    It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that.
    I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to
    justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority
    to give him his annual performance evaluation.”
    Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the
    backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other
    people’s reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend
    that they get a life.
    John
    #
    End Correspondence from Dr. Theon.

    It appears that Hansen and Schmidt cannot be trusted to recognize and acknowledge the superiors they worked for at NASA, much less faithfully testify the NASA results before Congress instead of their own personal agenda and findings. In most organizations, private and governmental, such behavior was grounds for immediate termination of employment. The evidence is abundant that political obstruction by powerful Democrat sponsors is the principal means by which Hansen and others have retained their employment with NASA. A person can only wonder how many well qualified scientists who happen to disagree with Hansen have been denied employment and/or promotions at GISS by Dr. Hansen, while he enjoys political patronage?

  130. D. Patterson,

    You wrote: “hat is a false argument, because much of his research is dismissed by virtue of its all too obviously impossible and failed forecasts. Hansen’s forecast for the inundation of Manhattan Island, for one example, has long ago come and gone past. At this point in time much of Hansen’s forecast work is a dismal joke.”

    My point was that his violation of the Hatch Act would not invalidate his scientific findings. Your assertion that they would be invalidated by being false and impossible is certainly true — a thing is invalidated when shown to be invalid — . but this has nothing to do with the Hatch act and its bearing on the robustness of Hansen’s science.

    Hansen’s “forecast for the inundation of Manhattan Island”, as the blogs love to discuss, was based on an offhand remark looking out his office window while being interviewed by a journalist. It was not made in a published report on his research.
    Hansen’s projections have been spot on, for the most part. Unfortunately for all of us.

  131. Jesse,
    Please check the following link on NASA official policy.

    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/general_law/ethicsfaq.html

    I will leave it to your common sense to determine if these guidelines are breached by someone accepting a “prize” of cash. But a few interesting clips from NASA.
    Direct from NASA:
    “What’s the point of all this ethics stuff?”
    Thomas Jefferson enunciated the basic principle of public service: “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” This sentiment has been expressed by numerous others, over time becoming the familiar principle “Public service is a public trust,” which has been formalized in Executive Order 12674.
    Gifts From Outside Sources

    If you’ve been in the Government any length of time, you know that civil servants usually aren’t supposed to accept gifts from outside sources. However, because of the myriad situations in which gift issues can arise, application of the rules can be complex. The actual gift rules are found at 5 CFR §§ 2635.201-2635.205.

    “What is a gift?”
    Almost anything of monetary value, such as cash, meals, paperweights, trips, concert tickets, and services.
    “I have a business at home, and my computer here at work has exactly the software package I need to keep my mailing lists.”
    Stop right there. Employees may not use Government property for other than authorized purposes. NASA computers and networks are provided to employees for conducting official business only. Official business means internal and external communication and preparation and delivery of products or services which are part of one’s duties and require the use of NASA’s computer equipment, software and networks. Supervisors may permit limited personal use of Internet services (World Wide Web) provided the use does not interfere with the employee’s work or the work of others, and provided this privilege is not abused. It is not permissible to access, download, or print material which would offend others or create a hostile work environment. Access to the Web should be limited to brief periods when it can reasonably be assumed by supervisors, other employees, and the public, that the employee is in a non-duty status, such as during the lunch break. Expressly prohibited use of NASA computers and networks is that which is clearly not related to official business, such as conducting commercial or non-profit personal business; performing personal work (finances, investments, purchases, legal correspondence); performing work for non-work related organizations (social, political, religious); sending chain letters or social messages; playing computer games; or engaging in partisan political activity.

  132. Steve from Rockwood,

    NASA’s regulations allow it to grant waivers in cases where the employee’s acceptance of cash awards does not involve conflict of interest; as would be the case if an employee were to receive a gift from a manufacturer of devices that measure outgoing longwave radiation, and the employee is in charge of determining how many such devices are needed to arrive at correct measurements.
    Awards are prohibited in such cases because they can influence what the recipient of the award will subsequently do in his official capacity — for example, double his estimate of the number of infrared sensors that NASA needs.
    Dr. Hansen’s is clearly not such a case. The awards he has received have been in recognition of his life’s work — they look back in gratitude, and not forward in anticipation. And the fact is that Hansen is nearly 70 years old and his scientific achievements are years and decades in the past. He has had his say, scientifically, and there is little that he can do now except cross the T’s and dot the I’s on the body of his work. (Dr. Hansen, forgive me if you are reading this.)
    It would not have made sense to bar Dr. Hansen from receiving awards in honor of his life’s work — not even mean, narrow sense — which is evidently why NASA did not bar him.

  133. Jesse Fell says:

    “Hansen’s projections have been spot on, for the most part.”

    Hansen’s predictions are wrong. All of them.

    Furthermore, as head of GISS, Hansen has the past temperature record falsified in order to show faster warming.

    If you ignore Hansen’s blatant scientific misconduct in repeatedly altering the past temperature record [and always in a way that is most alarming to the public], then you have no interest in the truth.

  134. Jesse Fell says:
    October 5, 2011 at 9:09 am
    D. Patterson,

    You wrote: “hat is a false argument, because much of his research is dismissed by virtue of its all too obviously impossible and failed forecasts. Hansen’s forecast for the inundation of Manhattan Island, for one example, has long ago come and gone past. At this point in time much of Hansen’s forecast work is a dismal joke.”

    My point was that his violation of the Hatch Act would not invalidate his scientific findings. Your assertion that they would be invalidated by being false and impossible is certainly true — a thing is invalidated when shown to be invalid — . but this has nothing to do with the Hatch act and its bearing on the robustness of Hansen’s science.

    You are using a false and misleading argument by trying to link an apparent violation of the Hatch Act with the quality of Hansen’s scientific publications, which is not what his critics are doing. Hansen’s critics are challenging the quality of his scientific publications, scientific opinions, and activist public policy statements, apart from his misconduct as a Federal employee. You are limiting the scope of the misconduct only to violations of the Hatch Act, whereas the Hatch Act is only a part of the wider range of misconduct the critics are concerned about. For example, Hansen took it upon himself to unilaterally reverse the actual position of NASA with respect to testimony before Congress about global warming, contrary to and without the prior knowledge or permission of his superiors. This act alone was gross insubordination worthy of immediate termination. The only obstacle to such a firing and ruination of his career was the political interference provided by Democrats such as Gore, Clinton, Obama, and Democrats in Congress responsible for the appropriations of the NASA budget.

    Hansen’s “forecast for the inundation of Manhattan Island”, as the blogs love to discuss, was based on an offhand remark looking out his office window while being interviewed by a journalist. It was not made in a published report on his research.
    Hansen’s projections have been spot on, for the most part. Unfortunately for all of us.

    There was nothing “offhand” about Hansen’s statements to Bob Reiss, author of the alarmist book, The Coming Storm. Hansen even reaffirmed the comment and his prediction years afterwards. Likewise, Hansen still maintains his claims about sea level rise causing the flooding of the West Shor Highway and other New York locales: “Severe flooding with increased frequency could flood the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, West Street, Battery Park, sections of East Harlem, Coney Island and entire neighborhoods in Staten Island. Almost the entire subway system in NYC is underground and is potentially vulnerable to flooding as well.”

    Climate Impacts in New York City: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Floods
    Introduction

    In the United States, approximately 53% of the population lives near the coast1. Thermal expansion of the oceans and mountain glacier melting are the greatest contributors to present sea level rise2. Continued global climate change could increase the intensity and frequency of storms along the East Coast, causing serious flooding. Damages to coastlines and infrastructure found there, in addition to fatalities, could increase.

    New York City has over 600 miles of coastline3. Its infrastructure is closely connected to the coastal areas — highways, subways, tunnels, sewage, sanitation facilities, power plants and factories are all located adjacent to waterways. Severe flooding with increased frequency could flood the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, West Street, Battery Park, sections of East Harlem, Coney Island and entire neighborhoods in Staten Island. Almost the entire subway system in NYC is underground and is potentially vulnerable to flooding as well.

    Hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to public works and private property in NYC have been caused by storms and storm surges. In addition, already-fragile ecosystems have been stressed drastically by these storms. Nor’easters do the most damage to the metropolitan area — striking on average 1 – 2 times per year, with severe storms causing major flooding every 40-50 year4. Hurricanes strike less frequently, but often leave greater damage in their wake. Responses funded at the public level have included beach re-nourishment, rebuilding coastal infrastructure (boardwalks, parks, docks, residential and commercial buildings, and groins off local beaches) and repairing or replacing public works (highways, tunnels, sanitation systems, and public transit).

    [….]

    Your statement that “Hansen’s projections have been spot on, for the most part,” is just plain ridiculous. Hansen predicted sea level rise at New York City in measurements of many meters, whereas reality has measured up to only two inches. This Website is replete with other past discussions of Hansen’s failures.

    http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2002/impacts/introduction.html

  135. D. Patterson,
    When Hansen is talking about “flooding”, he is referring to what storm surges from a hurricane could do to NYC; he is not saying that NYC is going to be submerged simply by rising sea levels. In the article pointed to by your link above, he writes:
    “Sea level in New York City has risen on average 0.27 cm/year or 0.2286 – 0.381 cm/year over the last hundred years. Looking ahead, it is expected that sea levels in the area will rise on average 0.3885 cm/year or anywhere from 0.175 – 0.602.”
    His contention that tropical storms are increasing in intensity has been corroborated by Kerry Emmanuel of MIT, who has found that the total dissipation of energy by tropical storms (as gauged by their intensity and duration) has increased by roughly 50% since the 1970s. Emmanuel now believes that there is a link between the increased in the power of tropical storms and the warming of ocean water.

  136. Jesse Fell says:

    “Emmanuel now believes…”

    You should get some kind of award for promoting “Team” propaganda. There is no way that hurricanes [or tropical storms] have increased in ACE. Observations trump Emmanuel’s conjectures.

  137. Jesse Fell says:
    October 5, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    D. Patterson,
    When Hansen is talking about “flooding”, he is referring to what storm surges from a hurricane could do to NYC; he is not saying that NYC is going to be submerged simply by rising sea levels.

    You are wrong and making another untruthful statement. A careful reading of the Webpage reveals an ambiguous discussion of both flooding and storm surges, permitting plausible deniability to be exercised when confronted. In this manner Hansen can attempt to have it both ways when criticized. Further reading of Hansen’s other statements at other times and places uncovers his artful ambiguity and misleading of readers and listeners. For one such example:

    “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.”

    The Independent, 17th February, 2006

    Note how Hansen in 2006 is predicting a 25 meter increase in sea level by the end of the 21st Century, and his earlier comment to Bob Reiss predicting a sea level inundation of New York City was made about 18 years earlier. Since a 25 meter increase of sea level per century averages one-fourth of a meter per year, anyone can see how Hansen is in effect confirming in 2006 his earlier comment that he predicts the West Shore Highway and New York City can expect to be inundated by the sea level rise in the 21st Century. Hansen explains away the mammoth discrepency between the 25 meter prediction and the lesser prediction related to the storm surges by simply saying: “None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes.” In other words, whenever his own disreputed modeling fails to suffice in doom and fear, he is perfectly willing to abandon science and simply make it up as he goes along.

    Like a faithfulo religious acolyte, here you are making stuff up as well with only a regard for the useful half-truth.

  138. Jesse Fell says:
    October 5, 2011 at 2:35 pm Dr. Hansen’s is clearly not such a case. The awards he has received have been in recognition of his life’s work — they look back in gratitude, and not forward in anticipation.

    Hansen has been so well rewarded by his political patrons, he could entirely forgo his salary as a Federal employee and still be a very wealthy man. This situation begs the question, who does Hansen really work for, legally or not, the taxpayers of all political persuasions or Hansen’s special political patrons? As matters now stand, Hansen and his political patrons have made the situied access to the Mation very clearcut. Submit to their self-dclared consensus and be rewarded with a career, promotions, prizes, and awards far in excess of your already substantial Federal salary and retirement benefits; or resist and be scourged from the undergraduate schools, denied a career, denied promotions, denied peer reviewed publication, denied acess to Congress, denied unbiased access to the mainstream news media, denied lucrative and prestigious prizes and awards, and be denied leadership roles in the professional societies. Jim Hansen and Michael Mann are poster boy examples of how your perhaps otherwise prior lackluster prospects for a career may prosper by serving the interests of your political patrons.

Comments are closed.