Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

Dr James Hansen

Dr. James Hansen -Image by World Development Movement via Flickr

It seems esteemed NASA astronomer turned climatologist turned paid activist Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do. How long will NASA continue to look the other way? Chris Horner explains. – Anthony

A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File

By Christopher Horner

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.

Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee. This is despite NASA ordering him to return at least some of the money, with the rest apparently unnoticed by NASA. This raises troubling issues about Hansen’s, and NASA’s, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for doing his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.

The following summarizes records produced by the Department of Justice to resolve litigation against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the required financial disclosures Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

These records are his applications for outside employment or other activity (form 17-60), approvals and accompanying documents, and public financial disclosure (form SF 278).

As detailed in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit which yielded these records, Hansen suddenly became the recipient of many, often lucrative offers of outside employment and awards after he escalated his political activism — using his NASA position as a platform, and springboard. This began with a strident “60 Minutes” interview in early 2006, alleging political interference by the Bush administration in climate science.

Hansen acknowledged this timing on his website, noting that first he was offered an award of “a moderate amount of cash– $10,000″ by an outside activist group. He claims to have turned this down because of the nominating process (without elaborating what that meant), and because of the impropriety of appearing to be financially rewarded for his outspokenness (“I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship [sic] for the sake of the $”).

Given that Hansen makes no bones about his (often outrageous) outspokenness and activism being, in his view, part of his job, this surely is also another way of saying it would look as if he were having his NASA salary supplemented by appreciative activists and others. That would violate the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 209.

Yet, as the offers soon became larger, Hansen changed his mind.

The records reveal that NASA initially was very direct in warning Hansen of his responsibilities and prohibitions relating to these activities, which covered the subject of his public employment. Later, after Hansen gained much media attention and condemnation of his NASA superiors for (falsely) claiming he had been “muzzled” (the second president named Bush he claimed had muzzled him), certain clear restatements of the law were dropped from the approval letters responding to his applications for outside employment.

NASA oversight of Hansen’s compliance with ethics-related reporting requirements similarly waned. At no point did they seek reconciliation of his serially conflicting attestations detailed here.

Improper Receipt of Outside Income Without Obtaining Advance Permission

Hansen’s 2009 speech at Dartmouth University for a $5,000 honorarium and up to $1,000 in expenses came in violation of the clear rule against promoting his appearances as, or emphasizing his job with, NASA. It also had not been approved. NASA’s Deputy Chief Counsel Laura Giza, after admonishing these violations, demanded he return the improperly obtained money:

“[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.

“Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”

If there were further correspondence about this demand it would be in NASA’s document production, but there are no such records. The only lawful scenario, therefore, is that Hansen quietly agreed to the demand, but did not inform NASA whether he complied. Otherwise, NASA, Hansen, or both have violated the ethics and/or transparency statutes and regulation.

Yet subsequent financial disclosure forms show Hansen attesting to accepting even more money, between $5,001 and $15,000, for a 2008 speech at Illinois Wesleyan University for which his file, according to NASA, contains no request for permission to engage in this outside employment, or approval to do so (each a condition precedent to lawfully engage in the activity, and to accepting the money).

There is no correspondence about these two glaring discrepancies in his filings reflecting more apparently improperly accepted outside income than most federal employees will ever see in their careers.

In order to continue his employment Hansen would therefore be required to bring himself back in compliance with the ethics rules by returning the money, between somewhere more than $10,000, and $26,000.

Although Hansen reported the income from both honoraria, he did not report receipt of travel expenses for him to get there. This omission is a pattern in his filings, to the tune of surely tens of thousands of dollars for airfare, meals and lodging to locations all around the country and Europe, all required by ethics laws to be reported.

For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

  • Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
  • Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
  • Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
  • WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
  • Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
  • Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
  • FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
  • ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
  • Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
  • Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
  • UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
  • Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
  • Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
  • EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
  • California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
  • CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007

The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:

Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club “No Coal” campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT

Other travel apparently accepted but not reported, to provide expert testimony including on cases involving federal policy:

California (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon), Vermont (Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth etc v. Torti)

Failing to Report Gifts

World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, which typically run $8,000 and up (2006), but which was not reported by Hansen on his SF 278 under “gifts”, which must be reported if valued at more than $260.

Failure to Report Receipt of Free Legal Services

On his website Hansen said he began accepting free legal services in 2006. These are not reported on his financial disclosures, as they should be.

Also, NASA’s document production shows him attesting to receiving more, separate free legal services in the form of an amicus brief drafted for he and a few others to intervene before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. This was not reported on his SF278, as required.

These lapses on both Hansen’s part and NASA demand scrutiny to determine how laws designed to protect the taxpayer are, or are not, being respected.

###

This story has been updated to correct some small errors  and formatting issues@ 8:15AM and 9:50AM PST 11/19/11

About these ads
This entry was posted in FOI, James Hansen, Opinion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

  1. Don says:

    Like most on the left, rules are for the little people.

  2. RockyRoad says:

    Tip of the iceberg–THROW THE BUMS OUT! (I don’t usually yell on this site, but I’m about as ticked off at corruption in government as one can get. There’s a big reason congressmen and senators leave office a whole lot richer than they came in, and it’s because what otherwise would get the rest of us thrown in jail for decades those bum congressmen and senators do without any punitive risk whatsoever.)

    So again I say: THROW THE BUMS OUT! And TAKE HANSEN WITH YOU!

  3. jorgekafkazar says:

    Rules? Ethics? Those are for the little people.

  4. Some parable about being goosed by a gander comes to mind.

  5. Chris, you, like Schnare, seem to be light on the links (you got this stuff through FOIA, right?) and long on the accusations. Links to the documents which substantiate your charges, please. Your link to the USC seems to miss section (d).

  6. David Falkner says:

    Wow, that’s pretty heavy stuff. If he were a CEO he’d be toast already. Speaking of, I do see some foreign countries. I am not sure of the wording, but is it possible Hansen violated the FCPA also?

  7. John from CA says:

    Even Dr. Dolittle deserves protection under the law; innocent until proven guilty. I suspect “has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do” doesn’t mean he neglected to files taxes correctly. It likely means he failed to properly detail the awards, prizes, honorarium (note: which is why these gifts are structured this way) with corresponding disclosures to NASA.

    Given that the past few administrations have been eco-zealots its unlikely he’ll get anything more than a “don’t forget to do the paperwork” in the future.

    If it turns out the income was never reported to the IRS… <– very unlikely!

  8. William B. Grubel says:

    Is there a way for a private citizen to sue or initiate criminal charges against NASA or Hansen or both? I’d be happy to lend my name to a lawsuit.

  9. Pete of Perth says:

    Very profitable being an activist, maybe I should change jobs. WWF seem to have alot of excess funds, I wonder if the rolex was white.

  10. John from CA says:

    William B. Grubel says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Is there a way for a private citizen to sue or initiate criminal charges against NASA or Hansen or both? I’d be happy to lend my name to a lawsuit.
    =========
    Hansen is harmless, just ignore him or enjoy the antics. It’s pretty strange a NASA Scientist can get away with the antics but, given that he does, an ethics plea is “lost in space”.

  11. pat says:

    The darling of the foundations, all of which have been taken over buy crazy academics and their ilk. They may be elitists, but no one ever said they were intelligent. Except themselves.

  12. sceptical says:

    Sounds like someone is jealous of others peoples income. Why are some so against people making money? Why do some continue to want equal outcomes and begrudge those whom do better financially? Why are socialists always against someone who has done well for themselves? Speaking of Dr. Hansen, seems his North Atlantic hurricane predictions for the season were pretty spot on.

  13. Tom in Florida says:

    “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”
    – George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

    .

  14. tokyoboy says:

    Only $1.6 million in the past five years? ……..Unbelievable.
    Last year he got $0.63 million from the stupid Asahi Glass Foundation alone.

  15. Tim Ball says:

    Has he violated the Hatch Act?

    http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

  16. Gary says:

    All for the grandchildren, perhaps?

  17. Bob Johnston says:

    I wonder how much Hansen would have received had he been a skeptic. Nevermind… dumb question.

  18. SPQR says:

    Remember that the accusation is always that the skeptics are the paid-off hacks … and so we see the projection.

  19. Fernando says:

    Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009

    certainly “the eolic” energy division

  20. Kaboom says:

    Oh he took $10k from Shell. He’s in big oil’s pocket. That may be the straw that breaks this particular camel’s back.

  21. Dr A Burns says:

    I’ve been ridiculously accused of being on the ‘big oil’ payroll and I’m sure other realists have as well … what a laugh to see that Hansen really is !

  22. pwl says:

    Wow, excellent post. Can’t wait for the trial… that’ll be fun to watch… get the popcorn ready.

    I suppose if they can’t get Hansen for the alleged scientific fraud and alleged commercial fraud of passing off statistically interpolated data as if it’s actual observational data from the Arctic stations (eg. using one temperature station for 1,200 km diameter area thus artificially and evidently fraudulently inflating the Arctic temperature rise by many degrees) then his collecting the money as benefits of those alleged frauds for propaganda purposes is sweet even if it’s because he simply failed to report the monies, the failure of which seems to be a serious crime as he’s a government employee.

    One thing about people committing frauds is that they tend to over reach and do it in more than one way as they think they can get away with it since they’ve not yet been caught.

    Oh, wait a moment, Hansen fits the definition of the 1% Crony Government Cult Member who snuggles up to his Corporatist friends (see the list of organizations that he received monies from) to support their agenda’s so that they received massive funding from the public purse and private interests. Is Hansen one of the 1% of government that is corrupt? Seems like it the more we learn about his financial and propaganda activities.

  23. Paulino says:

    1.6 million in 5 years?! Wow! The guy must be swimming in golden coins pools right now.
    How does that compares to Oil and Coal Industries lobby expenditure in Washington?
    Here’s an old link, but I don’t think the figure have been lowering:

    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

    And seeing these figures, I really don’t know why AGW skeptics worry so much. Nothing will change, those leftists radicals can’t even pass a law to provide proper food for students:

    http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19361388

    If legislators can turn ketchup into salad, just think of what they can do to CO2.

  24. Breckite says:

    Give him a break…he’s trying to save the world! (obvious sarc)

  25. Lobbyists are paid, nothing wrong with that. Oh ya, they are required to register as such. Not a lobbyist but just an advocate. Then give up your NASA position and become an academic, at least they can receive outside income and perks with only the IRS to care.

  26. d says:

    I am not suprised at all. THis explains alot. I hope this can remain a top story for awhile. thank you.

  27. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    I’m retired Civil Service and what he’s done is sufficient to be fired. But he’ll get away with it because of his political connections. The rule of law is getting thinner and thinner and it won’t just be climate activism that’s tolerated as ethics rules are eviscerated – think 3rd world bribery that part of doing business with their governments. That’s what we’re heading for now.

  28. ew-3 says:

    The real problem is he is a government employee. Very hard to get rid of one.
    In the private sector he’d be toast already. The sad part is he is going to get a really big retirement when he decides to go. And we will still be paying for it.

  29. TedK says:

    Wonderful sleuthing Chris Horner!

    This is a great summary page that we all need to our congressional representatives and to Representative Issa as Chairman of the Oversight & Government Reform Committee. Don’t forget to mention Dr. Hansen’s arrests and calls for property destruction.

    Once the scrutiny starts with Hansen, that is a deep dark pit they’ll be pulling the muck out of. Bets he retires soon. Let an investigator identify definite illegal actions with Federal money and retirement will not shield him.

    In spite of the trolls attempting to spin this information as innocence unrecognized, honest but sloppy, ethical but misled, normal or whatever; accusing a potential wrongdoer always starts with stating the obvious. The accused then has the right to face their accusers in court. Of course, the Federal government may (likely) will require complete paper trails and extensive records. They will expect to see all approved form 17-60s, travel requests, travel vouchers, leave requests. Along the way, the investigators will work out a conference, meeting, engagement, travel itinerary and they’ll compare it to the official records. Given indications of, let us say, accidental omissions they’ll interview the traveler employee. Any indication of wrong intent, like failing to return funds already identified as wrongfully earned and the investigation will kick up a notch. Kick that notch high enough and the IG will subpoena detailed records from all involved, if necessary they’ll construct a timeline/travel/earnings/activities itinerary to identify every possible accidental omission.

    This is before they ask Dr. Hansen about his arrests and political activities.

    All of this is something that NASA/NOAA should have nipped in the bud years ago. NOAA will have a lot of explaining to do on just how this employee’s actions got so far out of proportion.

    John from CA says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    Even Dr. Dolittle deserves protection under the law; innocent until proven guilty. I suspect “has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do” doesn’t mean he neglected to files taxes correctly. It likely means he failed to properly detail the awards, prizes, honorarium (note: which is why these gifts are structured this way) with corresponding disclosures to NASA…

    What a bizarre series of statements! Accused is accused, convicted is a different word. By the way, is identifying improper paper trails and a lack of official approvals even an accusation? No, but it sure gets close to an IG asking tough questions that don’t have currently visible answers that are on legal public interest documents. It’s not got anything to do with IRS, yet.

    Just where are those disclosures for “gifts detailed with corresponding disclosures”? Are they posted on a web site somewhere? This sure seems to be a “nothing to see here” PR evasion statement; politely saying for our ignorant benefit; “Of course all of these gifts, trips, accomodations, meals, honoria are all legally and properly disclosed to NASA/IRS by…” who? WWF? Yeah, sure, what an obfuscation.

  30. crosspatch says:

    Rules do not apply when they are counter to the political agenda.

  31. F. Ross says:


    As he cannot receive outside income for his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.

    [emphasis mine]
    Aye, …there’s the rub, finding someone in the current Justice Department to look into these matters!

  32. Green – as in greenbacks

  33. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Where are all of the apologists? Only Rattus so far.

  34. davidmhoffer says:


    Jimmy Haigh. says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    Where are all of the apologists? Only Rattus so far.>>>

    I was just thinking the same thing. And Rattus’ comment was so lame it wasn’t even worth rebutting!

  35. KevinK says:

    And NASA was the PREMIER scientific and engineering organization that helped inspire me as a young lad to pursue a so far successful career in engineering.

    They took us to the MOON and then this HACK (I repeat that term HACK) “scientist” trashed their reputation.

    What a SHAME……………….

    Cheers, Kevin.

  36. edrowland says:

    Inquiring minds want to know: how do you power a 12,000 watt projector from a wall plug that only produces 2,000 watts? That part must have been interesting too.

  37. Cassandra King says:

    The ‘big eco’ industry has all the funds it needs to reward its mouthpieces very handsomely indeed, from BBC reporters to NASA employees to bought off academics, all are rewarded for their services to big eco. Money greases the wheels, known faces add gravitas to the giant fraud, of course it helps to accuse the enemy of tactics they themselves are engaged in. So a multi billion pound cartel of flimflam carpet baggers from big eco use gutter tactics to peddle its fraud? Wait until the extent becomes clear.

  38. Rob Munning says:

    So now we know the source of Mann’s hockeystick: it was a graph of Hansen’s income.

  39. jorgekafkazar says:

    Can you say, “conflict of interest?” I knew you could.

  40. Ethics? We don’t need no stinking ethics.

    Every wonder who funds Green Peace and the WWF?

  41. Damage6 says:

    I worked in DOD research and development which included a small amount of aquisitions activity. As such I had to file an OGE 450 form annually after receiving a day long “threat brief” from the command ethics lawyer where we were repeatedly threatened if we didn’t conform to every last iota of the letter and intent of the law she would ensure that ” I will see your a$$ in jail”. One of the cautionary tales during the threat brief was of an officer in an adjacent command who lost his career over accepting a $250.00 watch from a contractor. He claimed he didn’t realize the value of the gift (less than $30.00 worth of gifts are admissible and are usually things like pens, coffee mugs, t-shirts or similar things). He was never given a chance to return it and an 18 year career was snuffed out 2 years short of retirement for a talented officer who had commanded troops in combat and was universally respected. I knew some of his troops that served under him downrange and by all accounts he was the type of leader whose crew would walk through fire for. Alot of folks were upset but at the end of the day he really should have known better. Stacked up against this NASA guys rock star lifestyle recieved for using his position as a federal official to promote a political agenda it somehow doesn’t seem very just.

  42. Steve C says:

    Nice work if you can get it,
    And you can get it if you lie.

  43. John from CA says:

    TedK says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    =========
    Have you lost all sense of reality? Let the “judge” pass a statement in this case.

  44. John F. Hultquist says:

    I note RockyRoad’s comment (@ 6:20) alluding to Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Throw Them All Out.” Sarah Palin’s latest opinion piece in the WSJ begins: “Mark Twain famously wrote, “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Throw Them All Out,” reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)”

    Later she asks: “Politicians who arrive in Washington as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires. Why?”

    If Twain were writing today he would have to amend his statement.

    I’m inclined to think not much will follow from these revelations of Mr. Hansen’s finances. The Justice Department is busy investigating Miami Police and Penn State and the congress critters are busy doing nothing. The Pres, meanwhile, is on the campaign trail – lately getting advice from Australian Prime Minister Julia “there will be no tax” Gillard.

    This post is extremely interesting nonetheless. I need more pop corn.

  45. Mariss says:

    Wow! I guess that makes Hansen a 1%’er I’ll make it hard for him to have street-cred with all those 99%’s out there on Wall Street.

  46. John F. Hultquist says:

    Did davidmhoffer @9:21 turn on italics and not turn it off?

    [REPLY: Fixed. Thanks. -REP]

  47. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    Sounds like someone is jealous of others peoples income……
    ======================================================
    I think you’re missing the point. No one cares how much he makes……. we care about what was bought and sold. Hansen can do what ever he pleases, as a private citizen. But he’s not a private citizen, and he can’t sell his position, which, it seems he has. Most people call this graft. It’s illegal. And for anyone interested, as the post states, much of this information is freely available at his blog. He freely writes about the graft he’s received for his advocacy. Heck, he even writes about using the ill gotten gain and buying solar panel for his house, getting tax rebates for it, and then whining about the generation and reimbursement rates. It was one moment of clarity for him. He realizes renewables won’t work…….. It’s in his Easter Bunny rant……. the guy is either entirely incapable of making a proper ethical decision or he’s so delusional he isn’t aware that he’s breached these rules.

  48. John from CA says:

    James Sexton says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:38 pm
    ========
    Amazingly complex comment!

    Should Scientists in Civil Service for Federal Agencies be held accountable to the same STANDARDS the Congress is sworn to?

    LOL, Dr. Hansen on their terms my be our next PresDenture.

  49. P.F. says:

    Didn’t Hansen get $250,000 directly and $900,000 in support to “put a scientific explanation for global warming” back in the 1980s? I need to look a little deeper, but I recall the Heinz Foundation (Theresa Heinz-Kerry) was involved.

  50. NW says:

    Some of this seems trivial. I get flown lots of places to give papers and spend a day with faculty. It has almost always been economy class, though for some international flights they pay for premium economy, a slightly less exhausting option. When I’m there, wherever it is, my host picks up hotels and meals. I really don’t think any academic or scientific home institution should get excited about that kind of thing. They WANT their employees to have national and international influence.

    However, the bigger honoraria and prizes and gifts are quite another matter for any organization, and do smell funny. At best Hanson and his staff have been very careless. At worst, well, the peanut gallery has weighed in on that already.

  51. JPY says:

    Where are the links Anthony? You are asking us to take the word of someone who has repeatedly exaggerated and misled in his statements about GISS and Hansen in particular:
    http://climscifoi.blogspot.com/2011/06/ati-nasa-lawsuit.html

    You have frequently stated that you abhor baseless accusations, but in this case without seeing the actual documents released, how can anyone judge? Put them online and let the world see if the complaints are justified.

  52. Gary Mount says:

    KevinK says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:21 pm
    They took us to the MOON and then this HACK (I repeat that term HACK) “scientist” trashed their reputation.

    Don’t you think that the space shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters did some harm to the reputation of NASA?
    It was just pure luck that no astronauts were killed in space during the moon shot. Let some other nation go back to the moon and win the prize of having the first dead astronaut on the moon.

  53. Peter Miller says:

    Conflicts of interest are obvious here, but that is always the way with ‘climate scientists': I manufacture unfounded scare stories, therefore I have a comfortable job and lots of grants.

    Naked greed is another issue, but being a global purveyor of distorted data and perverted information – and being grossly rewarded for it – is what gets my goat.

    For the Brits here, there is a smell of Cherie Blair about this – greedy, unprincipled and a darling of the champagne socialist cliques.

  54. MangoChutney says:

    Didn’t Hansen say to Congress that oil executives should “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature,” and yet he takes their money?

  55. gbaikie says:

    “They took us to the MOON and then this HACK (I repeat that term HACK) “scientist” trashed their reputation.”

    I am not certain Hansen is the worse nor of the idea that Hansen single handed screw up NASA reputation.
    I think it’s obvious that a cleaner agency would not suffer Hansen unless there was a lot of this kind of stuff going on. Maybe more of thousand cuts sort of thing though likely even bigger graft.

    During Gore’s time as vice president, one of Gore pet project was advertised to clean up government.
    Coincident? The fact the Gore and Hansen are pals?
    I don’t don’t so- it’s typical move of politician to say one doing one thing to mask doing quite the opposite.

    A larger issue regarding Gore was the VentureStar boondoggle costing a billion dollar of tax dollars that achieved nothing.
    Hansen is clear example of graft but not all crooks are going be as crass as Hansen.

  56. Mac the Knife says:

    Gary Mount says:
    November 19, 2011 at 12:08 am
    “Let some other nation go back to the moon and win the prize of having the first dead astronaut on the moon.”

    Gods, I’m exasperated with craven, spineless cowards….. If I could get on a shuttle flight tomorrow, knowing it had a demonstrated 1 in 52 flights failure rate, I do it! Every action we take in this life is a risk. Some, like climbing on a shuttle flight, or the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria are calculated risks. Others, like taking a chance on a couch with the girl next door, are genetic imperatives. Exploration, of the valley over the next arete or the hard vacuum of interplanetary space, are both calculated risk and genetic imperatives! We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they ARE HARD! Those of us with a spine and sufficient reproductive orbs will always be sailing towards that new horizon, taking risks to see what is beyond the edges of the known maps and carrying mankind into the unknown spaces labeled ‘Here Be Dragons’. That;s how we learn. That’s how we grow. That’s how we progress. Stagnation, as a culture or nation, is slow death.

    Stick with your Master Piece Theater and your evening chai latte in your faux leather recliner, Gary. You’re clearly not up to try or support anything riskier than carrying the weekly can of rubbish out to the curb.

  57. Laurie says:

    For those who missed the October 3, 2011 post on Dr. James Hanson, here is a link to the 2010 report which was received under the FOI by American Tradition Institute. http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ATI-NASA-Hansen-SF-278-2010.pdf

    My experience with some scientists is they don’t think they should have to follow these rules because they are very important. Just a WAG (based on experience) but the NOAA employee who pressed for compliance was probably replaced and that’s why the warnings ceased.

  58. Steve C says:

    To play safe, perhaps I ought to mention that my earlier comment
    (a) is merely a lighthearted expression of my own humble opinion;
    (b) does not, other than by chance, represent the views or expressed position of Mr. Anthony Watts, nor of any other person affiliated with this website;
    (c) does not, other than by chance, purport to describe any person whether living, dead or fictional, nor any activities of any such;
    (d) is strictly without prejudice; and
    (e) claims fair use of the wording of the first line.

    You can’t be too careful.
    I trust that this clarifies the matter :o)

  59. jason says:

    If you had that much of a “carbon footprint” would you want to delare it?

  60. edbarbar says:

    This reminds me of Al Capone. It’s not the obvious abuse of his position at NASA for millions, it’s the travel. If this guy were at a company, he would have been fired. But thank goodness someone has some ethics at NASA, and will get him the old fashioned way: for not filling out the paperwork.

  61. Sam the First says:

    Similarly, the Blairs were a normal middle class couple with a mortgaged three bedroom London house when taking office. They are now billionaires with offshore companies to manage their income and properties (and still call themselves Socialists).

    Hansen’s lack of ethics stinks – but most of us here knew that already. There’s something very rotten in the state of America, and it’s time someone took a grip – but who will do this?
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  62. Blade says:

    Rattus Norvegicus [November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm] says:

    “Chris, you, like Schnare, seem to be light on the links (you got this stuff through FOIA, right?) and long on the accusations. Links to the documents which substantiate your charges, please. Your link to the USC seems to miss section (d).

    JPY [November 18, 2011 at 11:43 pm] says:

    “Where are the links Anthony? You are asking us to take the word of someone who has repeatedly exaggerated and misled in his statements about GISS and Hansen …”

    Chris Horner, please ignore the Hansen groupies, it is just a distraction as you probably full well know by now. Instead, round up your documentation and sources and hand deliver them to Darrell Issa or his staff. This Hansen issue, the Gavin Schmidt issue (RealClimate on NASA company time), and of course the Mann email issue all belong now in Congressional oversight where we have a ton of taxpayer funded staffers just waiting to do some real work. Don’t waste one nanosecond of your time on these anonymous trolls, you owe them nothing.

    Paulino [November 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm] says:

    “1.6 million in 5 years?! Wow! The guy must be swimming in golden coins pools right now. How does that compares to Oil and Coal Industries lobby expenditure in Washington?”

    Ah, there isn’t enough potential fraud here to pique your interest huh? Got it. In the meantime, read some of the comments upthread from former civil servants and outside contractors and try to rationalize the strict set of rules that mere mortals have to follow compared to what a few celebrity alarmists seem to get away with.

    William B. Grubel [November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm] says:

    “Is there a way for a private citizen to sue or initiate criminal charges against NASA or Hansen or both? I’d be happy to lend my name to a lawsuit.”

    There are a whole lotta ways that federal fraud of the taxpayer can be reported (Google), but contemplating a lawsuit will require a DC lawyer and there are immunity issues for the potential perps. But there is one thing we (USA Taxpayers) all have in common – two US Senators and one Representative. They each have a local office and a DC office so that is up to (3×2) six offices you can contact (or visit), and ask for an investigation into any subject that you have reason to believe is a fraud on your tax dollars. This serves as re-inforcement for the official oversight since your request will get forwarded to the applicable oversight committee.

    Also, there is no reason you cannot contact the committees themselves as well. In the Senate things are FUBAR because of control still being held by the ‘Rats. However, the real action is in the House, specifically in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of which Darrell Issa is Chairman. For all practical purposes this committee is the one real watchdog with the fangs to take a bite out of crime. Some people suggest also contacting the office of the Speaker of the House as well. Well, why not? He could use something to do other than golfing with the White House Occupier.

  63. Gary Mount says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    November 19, 2011 at 1:13 am
    You’re clearly not up to try or support anything riskier than carrying the weekly can of rubbish out to the curb.

    You misunderstand me. Going to the moon when that race has already been won seems like a foolish endeavor for the costs and risks involved compared to the rewards received.
    And the risks are extremely high, more than you know or let on.
    Would you like one day for the world to look up into the night sky and see the moon and say there is a dead American astronaut or group of astronauts waiting for their bodies to be retrieved with the next hastily put together mission to the moon?

    I have worked in the high tech world of remotely operated vehicles that service oil rigs and conduct science and military operations deep in the oceans. http://www.ise.bc.ca/ Using humans for no other reason than to put on a show at extreme expense is probably why no one has gone back to the moon for 4 decades now.
    On the other hand I would like to see a manned mission to mars. It would be the first time humans had ever left the orbit of earth.

  64. petermue says:

    $500,000 for a trip to Tokyo?
    $500,000 for a trip to Paris?

    Hansen urgently needs a little horse sense!

    5 years ago I went from Europe to South America by plane for a 4-week vacation, inclusive board and lodging at a 4-star hotel plus 2 short trips to Argentina and Brazil.
    Total costs: 1,800 Euros

    I wouldn’t have had even the time to expend $500,000 …

    *baffled*

  65. John Marshall says:

    This type of activity is what the stocks were designed for. Plus a good supply of rotten eggs, tomatoes and other rubbish for the little people to throw.

    This man is a hypocrite of the first order like Gore.

  66. Julian in Wales says:

    Like with so many pseudo-religious cults; the humble lifestyle is for the rank and file, meanwhile the bishops use the money from the congregation to support a lush lifestyle beyond the reach of plebs.

  67. Gras Albert says:

    Might one suggest that James Hansen has been working hard to protect the future of his grandchildren, if not perhaps in the way his public statements would suggest!

  68. jim hogg says:

    An earlier commenter: “Like most on the left, rules are for the little people” . . . . As someone whose politics have been both left and right I can confirm that dishonesty is not a function of position on the political spectrum. It exists all along it – wherever humans are found you’ll find dishonesty.

    Richard Feynman, on honesty in The Meaning of it All: “People are not honest,” he pointed out. “Scientists are not honest at all, either. It’s useless. Nobody’s honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By honest I don’t mean that you only tell what’s true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.”

    I think that’s a good guide for scientists (and people) – regardless of political stamp.

    As for global warming, too often there are jibes on here about AGW alarmism being the preserve of the left. That’s rubbish. It may be that US politics are divided that way on the subject but elsewhere there is no such clear cut dividing line – and this site is viewed by people from all over the world.

    One thing I have noticed is that those who seek status, power, privilege, and often wealth (and they can be found on the left and right) are frequently inclined to be dishonest in their pursuit of these things. . . . .

  69. Steve Crook says:

    @GaryMount
    OT I know, but everything is risky. Astronauts know the risks and take part willingly. If we ever want to get out into the solar system in a serious way, then people are going to die. Whatever moral objections you may or may not have about the colonization of the US, it was only managed because people were prepared to run huge risks to get to America. How many drowned making the crossing? How many from starvation or disease if they made it?

    If NASA had got on the phone and offered me a seat on a shuttle flight leaving the week after Challenger I’d have taken it. For *me* it would have been worth the risk…

  70. P Wilson says:

    defiance and mockery seem to pay…

  71. polistra says:

    How long will NASA look the other way? No point in even asking the question.

    High priest Hansen has been advocating crime and total genocide for 20 years, and NASA has kept him around and promoted him.

    That tells you everything you need to know about NASA. It is a syndicate devoted to crime and mass murder.

  72. cedarhill says:

    So lying pays. Shocking? Go talk to your elected official(s).

  73. David, UK says:

    Hansen and his cheerleaders would just LOVE to see him being made into a martyr – I can’t see any other reason why he is so brazenly arrogant – and NASA so quiet – about his dealings and rewards. I hated the guy the moment I heard him tell the world that he’s been muzzled by two Bushes. I mean, there’s no need to brag.

  74. nofreewind says:

    This sounds like a Republican War on Science.

  75. Petermue said

    “5 years ago I went from Europe to South America by plane for a 4-week vacation, inclusive board and lodging at a 4-star hotel plus 2 short trips to Argentina and Brazil.
    Total costs: 1,800 Euros I wouldn’t have had even the time to expend $500,000 …”

    Clearly you are a poor time manager with limited imagination who needs the services of my ‘spendalot’ consultancy. Please urgently send 10000 dollars to the address that Anthony will provide for you and we can spend much more of your money much more quickly…

    TonyB (spendalot franchised consultant)

  76. LazyTeenager says:

    Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information. I noticed that some of you did notice and you had to come up with some contrived theory that Hansen is stupid, just to rescue your preconceptions. But deep down inside you know it’s lame..

    And did you notice that if you read carefully, many of the claims have a degree of rubbery imprecision about them.

    So here is a tip. Look once, twice and thrice if someone tells you something you want to believe in.

  77. Volker Doormann says:

    BTW. J. Hansen has given the result of his model in 1981 in Fig. 5 as a sum formula of ‘CO2 + volcanos + sun’ in comparison to the observation. The observation seems to be as a smoothed dashed curve from the hadcrut3 data (?).

    But a simple summing of the solar tide functions of 6 couples of planets from Jupiter outwards to Quaoar fits with the smoothed hadcrut3 data from the Earth:

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/hansen_verification1.jpg

    and maybe better than the ‘tripel’ model from J. Hansen et al.

    More.

    V.

  78. Beth Cooper says:

    We were told that global warming costs.
    They forgot to tell us that global warming pays…
    Oh how it pays!

  79. @ Rattus

    What you think or what I think are not important. What is important is that these allegations are properly investigated. Whether they will be is another matter.

  80. Jessie says:

    P.F. says: November 18, 2011 at 11:08 pm
    Didn’t Hansen get $250,000 directly and $900,000 in support to “put a scientific explanation for global warming” back in the 1980s? I need to look a little deeper, but I recall the Heinz Foundation (Theresa Heinz-Kerry) was involved.

    American Thinker: James Hansen Abusing Public Trust
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html

  81. Alex says:

    @nofreewind nice trolling. I’m from and live in Sweden and I’m not a republican. The issue here is someone using his position, paid by tax money, to generate lots of extra income. Income he would loose if he didn’t offer scare stories. You think this “scientist” will stick to the science when he got millions too loose, not to mention the fame and the rock n roll lifestyle?

  82. Frank K. says:

    John from CA says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    “Hansen is harmless, just ignore him or enjoy the antics.”

    While I would like to simply ignore him, I can’t let go of his advocacy for extreme positions on such matters as the TransCanada Keystone XL oil pipeline. You see it’s OK for Hansen and sycophants to have a secure six figure government salarie$ + generous benefit$ + thousand$ more in other income$ while at the same time attempting to DESTROY other people’s jobs, such as the dedicated and hard working men and women in the coal, oil and gas industries.

    By the way, for our WARMIST visitors (you know who you are), my standard announcement:

    PLEASE CEASE ALL USE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. RIGHT NOW. TODAY! (You can add any energy derived from coal or natural gas too). Not to do so would make you a hypocrite of the highest order, and you wouldn’t want that, would you? Please seek alternatives, and leave the hard working people in the real world alone. Thank you for your cooperation.

  83. schnurrp says:

    Another tiresome, boring example of “ends justify the means”. It’s amazing what you can get away with in American now, supposedly founded on the rule of law, if your “heart” (not “head”) is in the correct progressive place.

    General statement on the progressive movement (could apply to conservatives too in the opposite direction) which certainly can be applied to climate and energy policy: It’s easy to change things but difficult to recognize what not to change.

  84. RockyRoad says:

    nofreewind says:

    November 19, 2011 at 4:07 am
    This sounds like a Republican War on Science.

    Gosh, I hope so, if what you call a “Republican War on Science” is the exposure of charlatans like Hansen and the rest of our elected officials in Wash, DC that enrich themselves at the taxpayer’s expense.

    Take a look at this book that’s causing heads to explode in Sin City USA (and I’m not talking about Las Vegas–no, Washington, D.C. now get’s that dubious honor in spades): http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321710709&sr=8-1

    How dare they use priviledged information for their personal fiscal betterment? If any of us did that, we’d be thrown in jail and the key would be tossed. So it’s time to toss a bunch of these bozos out because they’ll never be self-policing and the way it’s going now, “Insider trading is illegal–except for members of Congress”. Read the Amazon reviews and you’ll recognize some very famous names in the list of perpetrators.

    This will likely cause a bunch of ensconsed career politicians to lose their seats for the first time in many elections as the electorate finally realize how slimy these people are. I truly hope so, for these “elected officials” (aka “criminal elite”) have been a big part of the problem rather than any solution.

  85. Jessie says:

    edrowland says: November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    Inquiring minds want to know: how do you power a 12,000 watt projector from a wall plug that only produces 2,000 watts? That part must have been interesting too.

    Wrong power source.
    Try renewables, straight into the wind turbine? When the wind is blowing & research investment $ have improved the outputs of their programs?

    To: (Your Government Representative)

    I support a simple ‘Fee & Dividend’ approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as outlined by Dr. James Hansen.

    In order to retain the highest standard of living possible for our future, I ask that you act immediately on meaningful greenhouse gas emission reduction policy.
    http://www.climatelobby.com/

    Tasmania (Australia) signed too!

  86. Roger Knights says:

    Grinding slowly …
    (Fingers crossed)
    ==========

    The moral of this tale is that Hansen likes to cut corners when its convenient and (apparently) to use his position of eminence to keep corner-inspectors “off his case.”

    If this overbearing behavior-pattern carries over to his data handling and argumentation–and why wouldn’t it?–then not much prima facie credence can be given to it.

  87. Old Wolf says:

    Rattus: The applicable section of title 5, referenced by title 18, section 209, is title 5, section 4111.

    (a) To the extent authorized by regulation of the President, contributions and awards incident to training in non-Government facilities, and payment of travel, subsistence, and other expenses incident to attendance at meetings, may be made to and accepted by an employee, without regard to section 209 of title 18, if the contributions, awards, and payments are made by an organization determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be an organization described by section 501 (c)(3) of title 26 which is exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) of title 26.

    (b) When a contribution, award, or payment, in cash or in kind, is made to an employee for travel, subsistence, or other expenses under subsection (a) of this section, an appropriate reduction, under regulations of the President, shall be made from payment by the Government to the employee for travel, subsistence, or other expenses incident to training in a non-Government facility or to attendance at a meeting.

    It specifically requires reductions in pay to the employee for any such travel, subsistence, or other expenses. Further, it requires those payments to be from a 501(c)3 organization, exempt from taxation under 501(a) of title 26. All such income must be reported.

  88. Gail Combs says:

    Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009 ~ ANTHONY, he’s got your money!!!!

    I also like the free legal services no wonder he sues anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat. GRRRrrrrr

    What a miscarriage of justice. How come the OWS crowd is not picketing Hansen’s office….

  89. Matthew W says:

    This is clearly not an accidental oversight by Hansen and his employer should not let it slide.

  90. James Sexton says:

    John from CA says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    James Sexton says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:38 pm
    ========
    Amazingly complex comment!

    Should Scientists in Civil Service for Federal Agencies be held accountable to the same STANDARDS the Congress is sworn to?
    =================================================
    I believe the standards they fall under are more confining than Congress, but Congress has changed many of their rules………
    And, yes, it wasn’t a very clear comment. There’s just too much to say about all of it.
    Here is his Easter Bunny/Kool Aid ramblings…. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf This is where he describes spending his graft. While I avoided the question of graft, here’s my take on his Easter Bunny rant….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/hansen-was-right-in-part-for-once/ …….

  91. Tom says:

    Wow, in my capacity as an oil industry scientist, if I go to a professional convention I can’t so much as buy a beer for a government scientist or state university professor. If I did, it would be presumed to be corruption.

  92. Beth Cooper says:

    John@ 5.28am.
    A relevant comment in the wind energy article you posted. ‘They’re not doing it to BE green, theyr’e doing it FOR the green.’ :-)

  93. Martin says:

    I hope he has all that money invested in a firm run by a fellow global warming true believer like say Corzine.

  94. Downdraft says:

    These allegations of ethics violations on such a grand scale immediately call into questions his ethics regarding the work he did at NASA. It would be amazing indeed if his ethics switch was turned on during his research, and only turned off when money was dangled in front of him.

    How did he get any work done? He spent all his time traveling.

  95. Tim Ball says:

    A couple of earlier comments and in the American Thinker article refer to Hansen’s charge that he was muzzled by the Bush White House. This appears to be a political ploy to scare away anyone who dared to investigate his actions. It was the type of charge the mainstream media of the time, which was in full anti-Bush mode, quickly parroted. His boss at NASA, John Theon, who I have spoken with, rejected Hansen’s claim.
    http://my.telegraph.co.uk/discpad/brakeshoe/8232594/Former_Boss_Says_Hansen_Embarrassed_NASA/
    It appears Hansen believes that the end justifies the means.

  96. Skip says:

    JBY, Rat and LazyT, If you want links, run your own FOIA. No reason Horner has to give you a thing. If you don’t like what he says, spend your own money and do your own research. Law works for you too. (and LT – wikipedia is not your best source for things legal, even in Canada. – take it from someone who actually does Cdn law enforcement…;)

  97. Steve Allen says:

    Lazy says: “So here is a tip. Look once, twice and thrice if someone tells you something you want to believe in.”

    Nah. We will have congress look into it once, twice and if we are lucky, thrice. I would think you of all people, Lazy, could appreciate that approach.

  98. chip says:

    For someone who happily equated coal trains to those during the Holocaust he has surprisingly little self-awareness in flying first class. If Hansen can’t politely refuse flights to Europe to collect cash gifts for the sake of the planet, you would think he would at least refuse the whopping carbon footprint at the front of the plane.

    And what’s with an $8000 Rolex from the WWF? Can you imagine a climate skeptic receiving such a gift from an oil company and the hue and cry from the media?

  99. James Sexton says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information.
    ============================================================
    Yes, it is strange, but are you suggesting Hansen didn’t take the money? It’s clear that he did, he writes about it. Or, are you suggesting there isn’t anything inherently wrong with selling his office? Or do you believe our bureaucrats should openly accept graft for their advocacy and position? I’m wondering how much you’d howl if it became known some General was receiving payments from some foreign entity while he directly effected our various policies? I don’t accept that this behavior is O.K. I’m sorry this is some sort of hero to you guys, but when our government scientists are bought and sold, we’ve lost.

  100. Dave Springer says:

    John from CA says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    William B. Grubel says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Is there a way for a private citizen to sue or initiate criminal charges against NASA or Hansen or both? I’d be happy to lend my name to a lawsuit.
    =========
    Hansen is harmless, just ignore him or enjoy the antics. It’s pretty strange a NASA Scientist can get away with the antics but, given that he does, an ethics plea is “lost in space”.

    _____________________________________________________

    Hansen’s quite likely to be held accountable by the next administration in Washington. A certain senior US Senator from Oklahoma will see to it if he’s in the majority. Hansen’s an impotent little NASA pissant to be sure. But it appears he parlayed his employment into 7 figures of compensation from outside sources and possibly did it in a manner that was not entirely consistent with NASA policy and federal law governing this type of activity with regard to public servants. Hansen might not be a powerful public servant but he’s made some very powerful enemies in Washington who won’t hesitate to send the justice department after him once they control justice again. If I were Hansen I’d be thinking about leaving the country real soon now for some destination which has no extradition treaty with the U.S.

  101. Olen says:

    The leadership in NASA is contributing to Hansen’s activism by not enforcing the law and NASA policy. In doing so they are denigrating the good name of NASA.

  102. DirkH says:

    Jimmy Haigh. says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    “Where are all of the apologists? Only Rattus so far.”

    They’re public employees and off the clock now. :-)

  103. nofreewind says:

    >nofreewind says:
    “This sounds like a Republican War on Science.”
    i meant these comments. and i guess some of you don’t know how to see a Joke! (like my wife)

  104. John Whitman says:

    Hansen’s current supervisor apparently is Robert D. “Rob” Strain. Strain holds the position of the Goddard Center Director.

    I have not seen any statements by Strain about Hansen’s behavior conflicting with his responsibilities.

    Personally, I think it is wise to discourage Hansen from becoming a self-made martyr for the agenda’s supporting all the alarming/concernist AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels. It is a much wiser strategy to let him continue his highly visible public parody of science at GISS (like Pachauri at the IPCC). One benefit of that strategy is Hansen’s lack of credibility lessens the stature of his direct reports like the RC blog leader Schmidt. Hansen’s behavior as the head of GISS is the gift that keeps on giving credibility to skeptics.

    So, dear Hansen-san, may we have more parody please? Thanks in advance.

    John

  105. Jay Curtis says:

    How is any of what Hansen’s been doing consistent with being a NASA astronomer? I’ve never quite figured that out. Hansen is obviously being protected. When his protectors lose their influence, he’ll be in trouble. He better have an exit strategy.

  106. Dave Springer says:

    jim hogg says:
    November 19, 2011 at 3:07 am

    Richard Feynman, on honesty in The Meaning of it All: “People are not honest,” he pointed out. “Scientists are not honest at all, either. It’s useless. Nobody’s honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By honest I don’t mean that you only tell what’s true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.”

    Fenyman was certainly bright enough to know that you can’t prove a negative i.e. “no one is honest”.

    All we can logically conclude from this is that Feynman is not honest. If Feynman were honest then he could not have made the claim that everyone is dishonest.

  107. David Ball says:

    Hansen also needs to explain his “adjustments”. We have been given the formula, but no justification. Policy is being made, so “We the People” deserve to understand exactly what is going on. We all need to watch carefully and rail against the scientific and legal bullying going on. “They” do NOT know what is best for us. “They” DO know what is best for them.
    Transparency is what I thought Obama meant by ” change”. Not so much.

  108. G. Karst says:

    In my experience, anyone playing this loosey goosey with finances, is probably the same when reporting income for taxes. Seems like a tax audit should follow. I wonder if anyone has sent a copy of this report to the taxman. A nightmare, I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Oh well, we makes our bed, then we must lies in it. The last I heard, taxes cannot be paid with shinola. GK

  109. John F. Hultquist says:

    Martin says:
    November 19, 2011 at 7:24 am

    . . . like say Corzine.”

    Now that would be sad. Seriously, thousands of folks can’t get their funds for now, or maybe ever. No one knows where it all went. Here’s a link:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/11/10/trustee-to-mf-global-customers-keep-waiting/

  110. David Ball says:

    nofreewind says:
    November 19, 2011 at 8:21 am
    Did you just say your wife is a joke? I don’t think she would appreciate that.
    Proof reading your posts often helps. Helps get your emotional responses in check.

  111. Anthony Scalzi says:

    edrowland says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Inquiring minds want to know: how do you power a 12,000 watt projector from a wall plug that only produces 2,000 watts? That part must have been interesting too.
    ———

    Just spray it with water. The feedback from the water vapor will provide the missing power. ;)

  112. John Cooper says:

    Anybody remember Ken Hollis? While working as a Main Propulsion System engineer on the shuttle program, he started posting publicly-available information regarding the shuttle program on sci.space.shuttle. NASA ordered him to stop or be fired, hence the term:

    hollised: /hol�ist/, adj.

    [Usenet: sci.space] To be hollised is to have been ordered by one’s employer not to post any even remotely job-related material to Usenet (or, by extension, to other Internet media). The original and most notorious case of this involved one Ken Hollis, a Lockheed employee and space-program enthusiast who posted publicly available material on access to Space Shuttle launches to sci.space. He was gagged under threat of being fired in 1994 at the behest of NASA public-relations officers. The result was, of course, a huge publicity black eye for NASA. Nevertheless several other NASA contractor employees were subsequently hollised for similar activities. Use of this term carries the strong connotation that the persons doing the gagging are bureaucratic idiots blinded to their own best interests by territorial reflexes.

  113. Peter Plail says:

    Rattus, Lazy et al, I have to ask, do you see nothing wrong with anything that has been reported? Do you believe that this is legitimate activity by a government scientist? Or is it that you deny that any of these incidents occurred?

    These are not the same sort of throwaway “big oil” accusations that are regularly, and baselessly, levelled at AGW sceptics and agnostics, Many of them are based on information apparently volunteered by Hansen who seems completely unembarrassed by his actions.Does this not concern you at all?

  114. Doug Proctor says:

    Laws for the little people, like you and me, are to control our activities, to keep us within bounds. As such they cannot be ignored. Laws for the big people, the rich and the powerful, are to facilitate their activities. As such they are malleable.

    Those who act are granted wiggle room; those who are acted upon, must stand still.

  115. Richard deSousa says:

    As long as the bureaucrats run NASA and GISS Hansen is untouchable. He can pimp himself to all the wacky AGW and environmental causes and make tons of money.

  116. Dr. Dave says:

    What bugs me about Hansen is his utter lack of fashion sense. EVERYONE knows you never wear a gold Rolex with handcuffs. How gauche!

  117. Laurie Bowen says:

    prosecutions under the false claims act

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=prosecutions+under+the+false+claims+act&pbx=1&oq=prosecutions+under+the+false+claims+act&aq=f&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3937l16094l0l16937l41l34l0l3l3l6l829l9530l1.4.3.3.5.3.4l25l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dcc84c4c7dd2e143&biw=1152&bih=562

    If it is all that bad . . . there will be someone who will complete a fishing expidition . . .

  118. jim hogg says:

    Dave Springer (a man whose comments I enjoy reading) . . . no argument there dave . . And I don’t see a claim from Feynman that his statement applied only to others. But some of us try very hard to be honest in all that we do. Others don’t give a monkey’s . . . And I agree with the poster who made the point that it would be strange if someone who was dishonest in their public activities wasn’t dishonest in their scientific endeavours.

    It sometimes seems as if there’s more dishonesty in science these days but that’s probably due to greater public access to and availability of research info, background stuff like sponsorship and, policy advocacy activities. It’s unlikely that human nature has changed much since Einstein’s or Newton’s time. It’s one of those things we’ve got to be on the alert for all the time, regardless of which part of the political spectrum or side of the warming argument it comes from.

  119. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Hansen is probably miffed he can’t squeeze as much cash out of hysterical global warming fear mongering as Al Gore.

    Al is a professional at getting rich off the Glowball Warming thingie . . . Hansen is a rank amateur, almost child like in his inability to make really big coin.

    Sad really, he could have been a contender.

  120. Janice says:

    I have a small and anonymous job at a National Laboratory. Every year I have to have ethics training, which includes disclosure of outside income and acceptance of gifts. Any outside income must be approved and also reported, no matter how much. No gifts may be accepted at all, that have any more value than about $10, which covers accepting free calenders and mugs. I cannot imagine that the rules at NASA are much different than that. If indeed Dr. Hansen is accepting income outside of NASA, and finds it onerous to get it approved, then I really don’t understand why he doesn’t just retire from NASA, start receiving his retirement income, and become a full-time lecturer and political advocate. As others have mentioned, it would appear that he feels himself above such petty concerns. However, if NASA is run like the place I work, the politics usually take precedence over rules and regulations, and rules are applied depending on your job title and who you go golfing with. It is very possible that the people who should be confronting James have been told, in no uncertain terms, to leave him alone. Therefore, it may not be a James Hansen problem so much as a NASA problem.

  121. Vince Causey says:

    Hansen has clearly leveraged his position for all its worth. Is this corruption? A felony? I don’t know the answer, although judging by the article, Chris Horner seems to think it is.

    Then there is the moral dimension. Should we judge today’s actions by the high moral standards that were in place 50 years ago? In some quarters Hansen would be regarded as a role model – how to acquire positions of power or influence only to then use these positions as levers to self enrichment. In one sense, those positions are merely the means to an end.

    In the UK, the age of public spirited politicians entering parliament for the good of their country is a long gone nostalgia. Politics is a career decision where the attainment of ministerial power is a stepping stone to using those connections to acheive lucrative positions as “consultants” for global corporations.

    Hansen has just taken this career model further and faster then anyone before him. Even Blair had to leave office before taking up lucrative consultancies. And the field of science is not top of the list for such a self serving career model. But when lady luck roles the dice – when you have both reached the pinnacle in your field AND your field has been voraciously monetized by rent seeking corporations AND you have the ears of the media and the gratitude of billion dollar global advocacy groups – when you have all these things knocking at your door, you would need to be a Mother Theresa to turn them down.

    Hansen is just a man of our times.

  122. California Angel says:

    Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains!!

    In the meantime, millions starve from food shortages caused by drought, flood, fire and increased ocean salinity/acidity. Millions lose their homes and livelihoods, suffer terrible losses. Wars ensue. In the animal world, mass extinctions over the next 30 years are predicted. It’s not pretty.

    And get ready for more, folks! Warm air holds MORE moisture….more torrential rains and floods ahead. Rising sea levels will make some Pacific islands disappear and lots of coastline will recede. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/17/ipcc-climate-change-extreme-weather/print

    We can debate all day about Hansen’s reporting/not reporting income. Wouldn’t it be smarter to heed the science and be smart people who get together to clean up this mess we have made?

  123. Paul Hull says:

    Gary Mount, at 12:08 am said,
    “Don’t you think that the space shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters did some harm to the reputation of NASA?
    It was just pure luck that no astronauts were killed in space during the moon shot. Let some other nation go back to the moon and win the prize of having the first dead astronaut on the moon.”

    Doesn’t anyone remember the genesis of the Columbia disaster? Freon based foam was replaced with its environmentally friendly foam. And despite the lone meteorite theory and the landing gear theory and all the rest, the engineers finally nailed the faulty foam.

    NASA putting green myths ahead of science? Say it isn’t so…but we can’t. Perhaps we ought to look back in history to see if there were others at NASA who benefited from promoting their pet agendas at the expense of those who had to go into space with less than the best.

    pbh

  124. Neo says:

    This would be a crime if there was actually anybody was in charge of this “do nothing” Administration

  125. barry says:

    Where are all of the apologists? Only Rattus so far.>>>

    I was just thinking the same thing. And Rattus’ comment was so lame it wasn’t even worth rebutting!

    Anyone that takes issue with this article is an apologist?

    Chris Horner has laid out a trove of accusations and provided not one document to back it up. Not one link appears in the article, nor even a facsimile in the body of the text. A real skeptic would ask for some corroboration, but real skeptics are very thin on the ground around these parts.

    I’m not convinced there is a case here, as there are provisions for government employees to do private work if it does not interfere with their duties. Horner’s ‘case’ is unclear – is Hansen liable for $26 000 or $1.6 million? In what capacity was this work done? There are a lot of awards ceremonies on the list – did Hansen speak at these or just attend?

    An article full of allegations, listed but not well detailed, and the author has a record of filing mischievous complaints and misrepresenting the truth*.

    * As I have provided no corroborating evidence for my claim, I trust the commenters here will enthusiastically accept it. I look forward to pats on the back, sarcastic affirmations and outraged extensions on my theme.

  126. David Ball says:

    California Angel says:
    November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
    I do not speak for all, but I think you will find that majority of people who post here do not dispute that humans have to be good stewards of the environment. Stick around and do some reading of this site. You may be surprised how informed the posters here are. Better bring your “A” game, as unsubstantiated claims are ripped to shreds. If you are honest with yourself, that is as it should be. Hint: The Guardian is perhaps not the most unbiased source of information. You have to make sure their information is solid before posting. In other words, do your homework and you will find this site an unending source of information and perspective. Sometimes it is a difficult pill to swallow when you find what you thought were “facts” are merely assertions that have no basis in fact. I am thinking about your “species extinction” claim in particular.

  127. Daryl M says:

    Let me guess, Hansen, who is clearly part of the 1%, is probably taking part in Occupy.

  128. 1DandyTroll says:

    What is it with socialists and made up biased awards and medals, I wonder? Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot?, jung, Castro, . . . They all granted awards and medals but only to those who saw it their ways and furthered their respective causes.

    So why is it lefties never can have objective and unbiased awards and medals, well more or less at the very least, like OS, or the pulitzer or even the nobel prizes (excepting the ludicrous nobel high jacked socialist peace prize that even hitler was nominated for.)

    Why is it that lefties never wants to include everyone?

  129. Damage6 says:

    Reply to NW,

    NW says:
    November 18, 2011 at 11:33 pm
    Some of this seems trivial. I get flown lots of places to give papers and spend a day with faculty. It has almost always been economy class, though for some international flights they pay for premium economy, a slightly less exhausting option. When I’m there, wherever it is, my host picks up hotels and meals. I really don’t think any academic or scientific home institution should get excited about that kind of thing. They WANT their employees to have national and international influence.

    NW this is actually a huge deal. Dr. Hansen is a government official. NASA isn’t a acedemic institution it’s a government agency. When I was a Marine I spent my last tour in an R&D facility dealing with far less consequential matters yet my collegues and I were held to far stricter standards than this government official blatantly violated on a regular basis. NASA doesn’t hire scientists to have ANY influence. They hire them to conduct research and write reports period. The only influence any government scientist should have on the political process is providing the facts as best as can be determiend in a completely unbiased nature. Anything else is a conflict of interest. If he wants to get rich and lead a rock star lifestyle that’s fine as long as he resigns and does it as a private citizen. Using his position as a government official to enrich himself while pushing a partisan political agenda is a serious crime which has resulted in firings and even jail time for others who did far less than what this “scientist” has freely and openly admitted to.

  130. mat says:

    California Angel
    Nice so got owt else for proof but a link to a bankrupt hack rag that is totally behind the religion ?or are you hiding the good stuff deliberately ?

  131. Vince Causey says:

    David Ball,

    “California Angel says:
    November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
    I do not speak for all, but I think you will find that majority of people who post here do not dispute that humans have to be good stewards of the environment. Stick around and do some reading of this site. You may be surprised how informed the posters here are.”

    You are wasting your time trying to rationalize with CA, David. CA doesn’t even present an argument which can be rebutted. Reading the post, it sounds like the regurgitations of climate advocacy groups such as WWF and Greenpeace. Some peoples minds will never open, and the misinformation is so ingrained it would take an entire book to cover all of it.

  132. Mac the Knife says:

    Gary Mount says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:26 am

    “You misunderstand me.”

    No sir. I understand the risks. I’ve worked a variety of aircraft, missile, and launch to orbit systems, both single use and return vehicles. I had several bits of hardware on the shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System and I am very proud of my contributions to that program and all the others I have contributed to and continue to work on. With each success… and each failure, we push back the darkness of ignorance and superstition, color in a few more pixels on the ever expanding map of human knowledge, learn from our mistakes and set off once more, to push the boundaries back yet again.

    Some of us die in these endeavors. We HONOR their memories and would never sneer at the sacrifices made by them and their families! I don’t expect you to understand that, given your dismissively disrespectful comments about those who strive, fail, and perish in the human imperative of direct human exploration of this planet and solar system.

    When the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria set out from Spain in 1492, I’m sure there were protesters on the quay, much like you, upset with the costs of Queen Isabella’s expedition.and sneering that “They’re just gonna get themselves killed and waste all that money! We need it for the bambinos…” Still, they set sail. The Santa Maria was driven ashore in a storm and destroyed. People died. New knowledge was acquired, unexplored new lands were tentatively sketched into the areas of the world maps, where previously had been written only ‘Here Be Dragons’. An entirely new history was written and is still being written today. New knowledge! New experience! New joy!

    We recognize the risks and accept the possible consequences. We ride motor cycles, build and fly our own personal airplanes, solo hunt and hike back country areas. When the coyotes howling in one canyon and the wolves howling from another disturb our solo sleeping bag slumber on a hard freeze, back country night, we know a joy that can only come from ‘being there’! We prepare ourselves in body and spirit, to minimize the known risks and provide contingencies for the unknowns, and then we set out in person to embrace and truly ‘know’ that new experience. Our place and our paths will never be circumscribed by the orbits around home, office, a monitor and a joy stick, and the pallid pleasures of vicarious remote viewing and sensing. We want, we need, we MUST ‘be there’, to see and feel and hear and taste and manipulate that new environment. That is how we fully embrace it! That is how we understand it! That is how we revel in sheer joy for each new discovery.

    Do not denigrate the human courage, sacrifice, and deaths of explorers across the span of human history, that your current knowledge base and sheltered existence rests on!

  133. California Angel says: November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am

    …millions starve from food shortages caused by drought, flood, fire and increased ocean salinity/acidity. Millions lose their homes and livelihoods, suffer terrible losses. Wars ensue. In the animal world, mass extinctions over the next 30 years are predicted… Warm air holds MORE moisture….more torrential rains and floods ahead. Rising sea levels will make some Pacific islands disappear and lots of coastline will recede…

    Look darling, you’ve just snorted some strong stuff. It’ll take a while and perhaps some cold turkey to come down from all that fantasy-science. But in the long run it’s not good for you. Truth matters for your health. Believe me because I’ve been there myself and so have lots of us here. In your own time, read my own story, learn how to check evidence. Click my name. Hang in here, and listen.

  134. Caleb says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    November 19, 2011 at 1:13 am “….We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they ARE HARD! Those of us with a spine and sufficient reproductive orbs will always be sailing towards that new horizon…”
    Amen.

    As soon as a people stop seeking truth, and would rather cling to wealth and privalege and power irregardless of the falsehood involved, the rot starts to set in. Over and over, if you study history, you see their stagnation overwhelmed by fresh breezes of truth, often taking a form they fear the most. They are sitting pretty, living high off the hog, and along comes some sort of invasion of Visigoths or Huns or Ghengis Khan, if not literally then figuratively. Then they either shape up their act at the last minute, or they see too late what they thought mattered doesn’t.

    As far as Hansen is concerned, I don’t think treason is too harsh a word to consider using, when you also consider the harm he has done to our nation. He knows by now his theory was not correct, but rather than confessing his error he seemingly takes money to persist with a farce, which only benefits a few and may very well, if unchecked, bring untold misery to millions, including, in all likelihood, his grandchildren.

  135. Stephen Brown says:

    I am a now-retired civil servant. I know just how inflexible Government rules are.
    After reading this article I must confess that words fail me.
    Hansen should be in gaol already, for corruption if nothing else.

  136. TheGoodLocust says:

    He probably wants to be fired so he can run to the media again with tall tales about evil “deniers” attacking him since they can’t attack the science.

    He’ll be able to triple his speech fees, get more prizes and a hefty salary at the Center for American Progress.

    Unless, of course, he goes to prison.

  137. Mac the Knife says:

    Tom says:
    November 19, 2011 at 6:59 am
    “Wow, in my capacity as an oil industry scientist, if I go to a professional convention I can’t so much as buy a beer for a government scientist or state university professor. If I did, it would be presumed to be corruption.”

    Same here, Tom! As an engineer employed in the astro/aerospace industry, we cannot accept anything more than a simple company logo coffee cup or inexpensive baseball style cap, without having to fully disclose the gift and turn it over to our corporation for disposal. We avoid the potential reality of being ethically compromised or giving the appearance of ‘pay to play’ corruption. I do not understand how an employee of a government agency can so flagrantly flaunt and violate their own agency’s alternate income, gift, and honoraria requirements and still be employed there! It sure smells of officially condoned corruption….

  138. Mac the Knife says:

    Caleb says:
    November 19, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    “As far as Hansen is concerned, I don’t think treason is too harsh a word to consider using, when you also consider the harm he has done to our nation. ”

    I agree, Friend! The gut wrenching waste of time, effort, and taxpayer dollars associated with the refuted AGW hypothesis is criminal. Equally as important, what new wonders could have been embraced or dinosaur killing threat been discovered and averted, had this monumental waste of human treasure been applied to real hazards to our existence?

  139. I want to see Hansen’s ill-earned dosh going as compensation money to Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Tim Ball, David Deming. Probably many others too I don’t even know of or remember.

  140. Sun Spot says:

    Hansen typifies why NASA has no manned space launch capability. Clowns like this caused America to loose the space race.

  141. Lest we forget, Dr Theon’s critique of his employee Hansen as reported at WUWT Jan 2009 – before Climategate. See Dr Theon at ICCC 2009 – scroll down page about 6 “layers”.

  142. John Cooper says:

    Paul Hull: You’re correct about the ET foam, but NASA changed two things: The blowing agent for the foam (which used to be Freon), and the solvent used to prepare the surface (used to be Trichloroetylene). Were you also aware that in addition to the bad launch decision, the environmentalists were partly responsible for the loss of the Challenger (and two Titan expendables)?

    “The
    deeper flaws in the shuttle’s system of protecting the booster rocket’s exterior
    casing–the O-rings seals and the putty-filled joints which contained the
    ferociously hot gases produced by combustion of the rocket fuel–are clearly
    laid out in NASA engineering reports, news reports, and the Report of the
    Presidential Commission of June 6, 1986. They lead back to a curious point of
    origin: the 1977 Consumer Products Safety Commission ban on retail asbestos
    products and the impending ban on all asbestos use by the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.

    Simply put, the Challenger exploded because the putty failed to prevent hot
    gases from passing through the booster joint and burning the O-rings. This
    failure was a direct result of a change in the kind of putty used for sealing
    the joints. For the first nine successful shuttle missions, NASA employed a
    special asbestos-bearing putty manufactured by the Fuller O’Brien Company of San
    Francisco. But in the wake of the developing notoriety of asbestos-bearing
    products and the fear of lawsuits, Fuller-O’Brien stopped manufacturing the
    putty that had served the shuttle so well.

    Early in 1984, having run through their stock of Fuller-O’Brien putty, NASA
    engineers turned to another type of asbestos-bearing putty manufactured by
    Randolph Products of Carlstadt, NJ. The Fuller-O’Brien putty was also used in
    the Titan 34-D booster rocket joint seals, similar in design to those of the
    Challenger. However, by 1985 it too had been replaced by a substitute putty. The
    result of this substitution, following a string of 50 successful Titan launches,
    was a devastating explosion of the next two Titan rockets, one launched in
    August of 1985 and the other in April of 1986.

    Source: Did risk reduction backfire in space? By Malcolm Ross, Washington Times January 28, 1996

  143. RockyRoad says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 19, 2011 at 6:29 am

    Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009 ~ ANTHONY, he’s got your money!!!!

    Sorry, Anthony…Gail is very seldom incorrect but here it is.

    However, no amount of Big Oil money could exchange for the truth WUWT proffers, not even the entire reserves of the Middle East.

    (OBVIOUSLY Big Oil’s contributions to such a nefarious scoundrel as “Dr.” James Hansen speaks volumes about their lack of ethics in this debate.)

  144. EFS_Junior says:

    Go Jim go.
    See Jim run,
    Run Jim run.

    So as a government employee for like 40 years, and being 70 years of age, and being director of GISS since 1981 through to whenever HE chooses to retire, I’m thinking he has to be SES class (for all those 30 years and counting);

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Executive_Service_(United_States)

    So I’d peg his SES salary at somewhere’s between $180K and $230K (high end same as the VP).

    And if he is still in CSRS (he’d have to be really stupid not to be), in about a year, or two maximum, he’d max that one out at 80% of his high three year average in retirement pay. In other words, full retirement at like $144K/year. Awesome.

    Note, this is a major backfire for the ATI, specifically because of ATI’s frivolous harassment, I’d expect Hansen to collect even more cash prizes, even more travel expenses (which he won’t report, in your face ATI), even more speaking engagements, even more Rolex watches, even more gold, and even more diamonds.

    Are you hopping mad yet? Because you all should be, and there isn’t a damn thing you all can do about it either.

    I found a new word today;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry

    “Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. This action is a crime in some jurisdictions.”

    “Barratry also refers to persistently inciting others to engage in litigation or other disputes or quarrels outside of the courts.”

    Now as to the 2nd definition quoted above, I think it would be wise, at this time, for WUWT? to seek legal counsel and/or advice. Seriously.

    Go Jim go.
    See Jim run,
    Run Jim run.

  145. Gail Combs says:

    RockyRoad says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Sorry, Anthony…Gail is very seldom incorrect but here it is.

    However, no amount of Big Oil money could exchange for the truth WUWT proffers, not even the entire reserves of the Middle East…..
    ______________________________
    I very humbly beg your pardon Anthony, I must of had a brain-dead moment due to advancing age.
    Thank you for the correction RockyRoad.

  146. davidmhoffer says:

    John Cooper says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    Paul Hull: You’re correct about the ET foam, but NASA changed two things:>>>

    Things always change, for many reasons. In the case of the Challenger disaster however, the changes you detail were ultimately not the problem. The problem was that the engineers who designed those seals recommended against launching because they were of the opinion that there was a substantive risk of failure. They were over ruled by management on the astounding premise that since testing had not been done at the temperature range in question (on the launch day), the engineers could not “prove” that there was a safety risk. So the launch went ahead because management subsituted their opinion for the opinion of the people who actually designed the seals. While you may be correct that the older types of putty used may not have resulted in a failure, the fact of the matter is that the design engineers were over ridden by beauracrats that were keen on meeting a time table and decided that reality was what they wanted it to be.

    The disaster is a lesson of history that is being repeated before our eyes, but on a scale that is global and affects billions of people. The substitution of political opinion over that of actual science. It is unortunate that NASA has so soon forgotten the folly of making decisions based on the way you would like the world to be instead of how it actually is.

    Here’s one of the most detailed and well documented accounts of what happened that I’ve seen:

    http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm

  147. oMan says:

    It’s “Dartmouth College” on Hanover NH; not “Dartmouth University.”. It is a small school, but there are those who love it. And who are appalled that it would something as dumb and university-like as pay the likes of James Hansen any amount, ever, for anything.

    Otherwise the article is my new favorite and I applaud the hard work of the ATI in prying loose records that should be part of the public file. These activists are all about transparency until it comes to revealing the very handsome perquisites of their position. The US taxpayer has paid at least four times for every dollar that Hansen takes home. First in his GS salary and benefits and expenses. Second in similar salary and benefits for the other nameless guy(s) who have to do his work because he’s so busy getting arrested and collecting awards. Third for the tax deductibility on the contributions to the NGO’s that were then funneled into his awards. Fourth for the carbon taxes and fees and subsidized boondoggles for green energy that Hansen’s work has forced upon us.
    Further suggestions on how to calculate the true cost of this creature, would be welcomed.

  148. Hoi Polloi says:

    Calling Nick Stokes, calling Nick Stokes… you’re urgently wanted in this thread for some damage control.

  149. Bulldust says:

    Does the term “conflict of interest” carry any weight whatsoever in US institutions? From what I have seen of the many cases such as this I can only assume it has no bearing over the pond.

  150. California Angel

    What evidence can you provide that present day catastrophic weather events are any worse than catastropic weather events of the past?

    Tonyb

  151. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:35 am
    “So here is a tip. Look once, twice and thrice if someone tells you something you want to believe in.”

    Kettles and pots?

    Hansen takes a lot of aeroplane flights. Just think of all that CO2. Has the man no shame?

  152. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    California Angel says: November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Gordon Bennet.

  153. Mooloo says:

    LazyTeenager says:

    Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information.

    Not at all unusual. Lots of scandals takes a long time to uncover, even when the information is technically visible. I say “technically” because it is only visible if you know where to look.

    Donna Laframboise has an awesome job digging up all the silliness in the IPCC from public sources mostly, but it wasn’t easy.

    Or consider the Penn State scandal now raging. That first came to light six months ago, and has taken until now to build up so that something is done about it.

    =========================================================================

    The key thing is that instead of the sceptics being bank-rolled by Big Oil, it is the alarmists being bankrolled by Big Green.

    I wonder if Rattus, Lazy, Barry and JPY go onto alarmist sites and demand proof whenever allegations of sceptics being funded covertly are raised? (Actually I don’t wonder, we know how those trolls work.)

  154. I’m laughing at the watermelons trying to defend this shill. To those claiming it’s not much money (like Paulino) that’s over 300k a year extra. Many would like to live on that.

  155. David Ball says:

    EFS_Junior says:
    November 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    Thanks EFS. I happen to know someone who is being bludgeoned by barratry as we speak. First definition. Funny that you would post that.

  156. Jeff Alberts says:

    California Angel says:
    November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Oh noes! Save the children!

    Seriously? And you’re still using a computer? Do you really believe what you typed? Or do you feel that switching to twisty bulbs is enough of a tithe to your religion that no more is required of you?

    Anyone who seriously believes CO2 is a threat and hasn’t forgone ALL modern conveniences (including houses and clothing) is, put simply, a hypocrite. Why should the rest of us worry about something you don’t really believe in?

  157. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    “Here’s one of the most detailed and well documented accounts of what happened that I’ve seen:

    http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm

    If you even read it you certainly didn’t understand it. Engineers had been objecting to every shuttle launch because of those O-rings which were getting seriously eroded on half of all launches. There was a history of ECOs (engineering change orders) to fix the problem and the last of these hadn’t been implimented yet. A perfect storm of events took out the Challenger. The O-rings failed to seat properly and at 0.06 seconds after ignition the putty which protected the O-rings from the high exhaust temperature fractured and collapsed. Normally the putty had air pressure between it and the O-ring to keep it from collapsing but the failure to seal meant there was no air pressure. In warmer conditions when these O-rings didn’t seat properly (they had problems all along) the putty was more pliable and flowed into the seal but in this cold temperature the putty was stiff and instead fractured.

    Still that wasn’t the primary cause of mission failure because by 0.08 seconds after ignition smoke leaking past the seal cauterized it closed and everything was fine again. This is why those O-rings were getting eroded (read burned) on about half of all shuttle launches prior to Challenger yet there were no mission failures because of them. So the cold wasn’t the primary cause of the mission failure and the engineer warnings about the O-rings had a long history that didn’t begin with the Challenger mission. The only thing different about Challenger was they didn’t have any empirical data on O-ring performance at temperatures this low and the worst O-ring damage they’d seen up until then happened to be at the lowest launch temperature up until that time (53F) and this temperature was considerably lower. The engineers also objected because of ice buildup which they said could break off and damage the shuttle’s heat shield. They were right about that too as foam flaking off the external fuel tank, something else that happened on most shuttle missions, is what caused the Columbia to break up on re-entry. But I digress.

    The straw that broke that camel’s back for Columbia was wind shear at 59 seconds into the flight. It was the worst wind shear ever experienced by a shuttle solid rocket booster and the stress caused the cauterized closure of the O-ring to break open. The cauterized closure, you see, was brittle. An intact rubber O-ring would have yielded and remained sealed. Flames then licked out through the O-ring and after 40 seconds burned a hole through the shuttle’s external fuel tank and the rest is history.

    So it was really wind shear that was the problem. Those O-rings had a history of failure, that history was well known, but it had never caused a problem before. It was just an unlucky day where the combination of a failed O-ring and extreme wind sheer at high altitude 60 seconds after launch brought it down. You can try blaming a lot of things but the truth is that wind shear was the unique thing that day that caused the catastrophic failure. The uniquely low temperature was maybe and maybe not a contributing factor because those O-rings were failing on 50% of launches regardless of the outside temperature. In all past failures the joint sealed itself from exhaust smoke pouring through the smoke and this launch was no exception. The exception in this launch was high wind shear breaking the annealed closure of the joint.

    Got it? Write that down.

  158. Dave Springer says:

    Oops – I meant “the straw that broke the camel’s back for Challenger was wind shear” in my last, not Columbia.

  159. David says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:35 am
    “Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information.”

    Lazy, the only thing that exceeds your inability to think is your inability to read. The beginning of the article states…”NASA records released to resolve LITIGATION filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal…”

  160. Dave Springer says:

    EFS_Junior says:
    November 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    “Note, this is a major backfire for the ATI, specifically because of ATI’s frivolous harassment, I’d expect Hansen to collect even more cash prizes, even more travel expenses (which he won’t report, in your face ATI), even more speaking engagements, even more Rolex watches, even more gold, and even more diamonds.”

    This and barratry presumes that the ATI suit is both frivolous and repetitive. It’s prima facie neither of those. The litigation is over the refusal of NASA to release information under FOIA requirments. The refusal is a matter of fact and constitutes just cause of action. The refusal may be upheld but the litigation itself is certainly not frivolous. So much for the frivolous claim.

    In regard to barratry there would have to be repetition involved. ATI has not filed any other suits against NASA and I’m not sure that WUWT inspired any lawsuits. I would recommend anyone thinking about filing a frivolous lawsuit against WUWT is what the result of a winning countersuit would entail because that would almost certainly be the outcome. The ACLU would jump on this in a heartbeat. The day when a blog can’t call for the investigation of a public servant for potential ethics or criminal violations is the day when freedom of speech and freedom of the press is dead in the United States of America. I wonder how the mainstream media would feel about that kind of precedent being set? Evidently you would have no problem with it. You a member of the communist party or something?

  161. Jessie says:

    Mac the Knife@12.59pm
    “When the coyotes howling in one canyon and the wolves howling from another disturb our solo sleeping bag slumber on a hard freeze, back country night, we know a joy that can only come from ‘being there’!”

    Not sure on the ‘solo sleeping bag’ one there, but hey, different strokes for different folks. Rest of what you wrote was inspiring, thank you. And very interesting.
    PS How are the 2012 calendars for hot miners coming along? :)

  162. Dave Springer says:

    David Ball says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “Thanks EFS. I happen to know someone who is being bludgeoned by barratry as we speak. First definition. Funny that you would post that.”

    Are you related to Tim Ball?

    Canada has gotten really weird in the past 10 years about censoring free speech. Just about anything can be classified as hate speech. We’re still pretty free to hate whoever we want in the U.S.

  163. Gail Combs says:

    California Angel says:
    November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains!!

    In the meantime, millions starve from food shortages caused by….. Wouldn’t it be smarter to heed the science and be smart people who get together to clean up this mess we have made?
    __________________________________
    I and may other farmers around the world have been paying attention to this issue for several years. Climate is not the real threat. Global warming is the DISTRACTION used by the magicians who are stealing us blind. I really hope you at least skim these articles to get you up to speed on what is actually going on.

    The biggest environmental organization in the world with an annual revenue of over 100 million dollars is controlled by investment bankers, the organizations that will make billions from global warming. http://edf.org/documents/8857_AR08_Financial_Comment.pdf

    The bankers own the Media
    J.P. Morgan & the media:
    1917 Congressional record shows Morgan bought the most influential news papers: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/conspiracy1.htm
    current: JP Morgan: Our next big media player? http://www.newsandtech.com/dougs_page/article_f3a45be0-4717-11df-aace-001cc4c03286.html

    An example of propaganda. The media blames CAGW for the farmer suicides in India. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/food-climate-change-famine-india

    However Dr. Vandana Shiva blames the suicides on Globalization, WTO and GMOs => DEBT. http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-shiva050404.htm

    THE TRUTH BEHIND FAMINE
    A bit of history on corporate/banker manipulation of US farmers since 1942: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

    In the European Union: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php

    Mexico: http://www.countercurrents.org/mohanty230608.htm

    Current world wide: Getting Use To A Life Without Food http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1

    Goldman Sachs & 2008 food riots:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html
    http://www.seismologik.com/journal/tag/cargill
    Do not forget the Ag cartels role: http://www.globalissues.org/article/758/global-food-crisis-2008

    And in 2011:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/latin-america-africa-most-at-risk-from-riots-as-food-prices-rise-un-says.html

    Carbon Trading Tree farms are being planted by the likes of the World Bank on land stolen from peasants. Worse a nasty, invasive, biodiversity unfriendly tree, that even a goat won’t eat is planted. A tree that literally poisons the land. I document the problem in these two comments:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-754959
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559

    EU Carbon Trading Rocked By Mass Killings: http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4009-eu-carbon-trading-rocked-by-mass-killings.html

    Farmland Grab:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/barton-biggs-stock-a-safe-haven-with-food-and-firearms-to-protect-against-pillagers-2010-1
    https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN
    http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab
    MORE AT: farmlandgrab.org

    Economic Concentration in Agribusiness: Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (1999)

    …There is considerable evidence that the economic power of global agribusiness giants has increased dramatically in the decade of the 1990s. If this power grows unchecked, a few closely knit global agribusiness corporations may control the food supply and food prices. It is my considered opinion that market power is getting out of balance…. http://www.competitivemarkets.com/ipowerweb/library/testimony/2002andunder/1-26-99.htm

    A Corporation Cartel getting control of the World Food Supply is a heck of a lot more of a problem than “Global Warming” CAGW is just the useful Scape Goat since plants love CO2 and warmth. CO2 even makes plants more drought resistant because their breathing pores (stomata) do not have to be open as much.

  164. Gail Combs says:

    Bulldust says:
    November 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Does the term “conflict of interest” carry any weight whatsoever in US institutions? From what I have seen of the many cases such as this I can only assume it has no bearing over the pond.
    _______________________________

    The law is only applicable if you are a serf.

    Remember the Senator from “Chappaquiddick” http://www.coverups.com/greatcoverups/teddy-chappaquiddick.htm

  165. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    Got it? Write that down.>>>

    So in summary, what you are saying is that the o-rings had been failing before, the engineers had been warning that they had been (and would again) and that they were over ridden by management reapetedly? So it was serial stupidity, not a single instance of stupidity?

    Do you bother to read what you yourself write?

    The straw that broke the camel’s back may well have been wind shear. The bails of straw weighing the camel down were decisions by management to ignore the past history of o-ring failure, ignore the engineers’ warnings, and to launch a system during conditions that were outside both test conditions, and design conditions.

    Management decided it was OK, and it wasn’t.

    That you can’t understand the bottom line was bad management decisions, is, based on the balance of our discourse, of no surprise to me.

    Write that down.

    Kisses.

  166. Damage6 says:

    EFS_juinor says “Are you hopping mad yet? Because you all should be, and there isn’t a damn thing you all can do about it either.”

    I think we’ll see in 2012 what can be done about it. The thing to do now is continue to allow the AGW alarmism pseudo-science to collapse and continue to gather evidence against those that deliberately and fraudulently skewed the science for their own enrichment. Once the forces of reason are in control of the Senate and the DOJ there will be plenty of time for vigorous prosecutions. Rest assured long after the AGW scare has faded away to the same level of discredited rubbish as the whole pending Ice Age scare many many people like me will be tirelessly pressuring their elected officials to see that Justice is done. Of particular interest are going to be the Alarmists that suppressed honest dissent and attacked anyone with the courage to question the great green gaia religion. Hansen is small potatoes. Most likely he’ll simply be fired and have his pension receded. The real target is the Great Gore-acle himself. If you don’t think there are attorneys right now figuring how to best go after this charlatan on the RICO statute you are sadly mistaken.

  167. Dave Springer says:

    John Cooper says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    re; EPA restrictions on asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons. Even today you can still purchase CFC propellants for legacy systems and devices with a proper permit. The EPA has no general ban on asbestos either. I seriously doubt it was EPA forcing the changes to the CFC propellents and surface preparation on shuttle external fuel tanks. Such changes would have to have been given a green light by NASA as well and the foam was already a well known mission hazard so I doubt any engineer okayed it unless he was quite confident that it wouldn’t compromise safety even more. Same goes for the asbestos putty in the SRB joints. The replacements were probably just much more expensive but equal or better for the task. For the government cost is no object so as long as it met the specs…

    There are delusional caped crusaders on each side of the culture wars. There are those who believe government can’t do anything right and those who believe government can’t do anything wrong. The truth, as usual, is found between the extremes. The information you mention sounds like it’s coming from one of the extremes.

  168. Peter Andreas Fog says:

    Dear mr. Watts, thank you for a wonderful website. I think there is a small error in the layout.

    “[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.

    Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”

    I think the second paragraph (beginning with “Also, in the future,,,”) should be a blockquote and in italics like the first.

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  169. David Ball says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 19, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    Dr. Ball is my father. I could not be more fortunate in the parents department ! There are no better examples of good, honest, intelligent, hard working people than me Ma & Pa.

  170. u.k.(us) says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    “The uniquely low temperature was maybe and maybe not a contributing factor because those O-rings were failing on 50% of launches regardless of the outside temperature.”
    =======
    Should I “write that down”.
    You are out of your depth, you just don’t know it.
    Write that down.

  171. Jessie says:

    Mooloo@3.50pm
    “…Not at all unusual. Lots of scandals takes a long time to uncover, even when the information is technically visible. I say “technically” because it is only visible if you know where to look….”

    440 kms of fencing pilfered to fence BOTH sides of the Western Pacific Highway in New South Wales (NSW), Australia!!
    Someone might point to a google map on the enormity of this (one example in) herculean endeavour in fencing. Or use Will E’s map of the green Australia.

    ‘….has admitted to the corruption watchdog he ordered enough mesh to build a fence to line both sides of the road between Sydney and Bathurst, as part of a major fraud racket at a regional NSW council….’

    Obviously the fence had not been constructed, nor an argument or scientific rationale developed for fencing, nor a tender constructed nor contractors paid to construct the fence, in this incident.
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/storeman-admits-to-major-fraud-racket-over-mesh-for-the-great-western-highway/story-e6frfku0-1226168585774

    And Local Government (LG) is asking to be recognised in The Constitution? Because it requires direct funding from the Federal govt for road infrastructure. Their (both Fed & LG) argument being that the States, who receive (and legislate) do not provide adequate re-distribution of the funds to local government.

    Here is one example of $ distribution of untied grants to Local Governments.
    http://www.regional.gov.au/local/assistance/index.aspx

    Australia has quite a history with fences and fencing materials given her small populations and vast distances in agricultural, sheep & cattle station industries. Also we built the rabbit proof fence & the dingo proof fence. More recently the camels have become an industry, but a fence will not stop them!.
    We overcame those vast distances and stock problems with controlling water points, then later helicoptors. I think property rights came in there somewhere. And freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Probably the suffragettes helped :>

  172. Wally says:

    There are rules in the ethics laws that allow for public employees to receive prizes and get travel reimbursed. However, all the exceptions are going to require the filling of the proper paperwork and clearance from the ethics office for each and every instance to make sure that the travel or prize is allowed under the exceptions and that no attempt to influence a government official is occuring. I have received a prize and paid-for travel in the past (both at a very nominal level), both required a lot of paperwork and pre-activity permission. Gifts are strictly forbidden above the level of free pens and mugs. In my experience the DOD is most strict in this and their managers seldom allow even the minimum exceptions that most government agencies allow. Outside employment is allowed but also requires the filing of paperwork to show it is not work related. You can get a job selling burgers or real estate on the side if you are an engineer but not doing engineering consulting. On the surface Hansen appears to be violation of a lot of the ethics standards. But without seeing what paperwork may have been filed and what letters sent from the ethics lawyers I can not be sure.
    If you are concerned send a letter of complaint to the NASA Inspector General, but try to have some specifics in your complaint not just a general statement that you read bad things about Hansen on the internet.

  173. davidmhoffer says:

    Wally;
    If you are concerned send a letter of complaint to the NASA Inspector General, but try to have some specifics in your complaint not just a general statement that you read bad things about Hansen on the internet.>>>

    Personaly I don’t really care if he filed the right paperwork or not. The point is that he has made enormous amounts of money by being an alarmist who uses his own work to give credibility to the alarmism that he is being paid to spread outside of NASA. Even if every penny were properly accounted for, the ethical conflict should be obvious.

    Do you even know what NASA stands for?

    Not About Science Anymore

  174. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says November 19, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    … links ad nauseum …

    Do you REALLY think ppl are going to click on even _half_ of those links?

    Please, and I say this kindly, save the raving nutter act for other venues …

    .

  175. forrest says:

    And they call this joker a ‘scientist’? Heck, I guess that the guy who cleaned out my credit card account must’ve been a ‘professor’ too.

  176. Mac the Knife says:

    Jessie says:
    November 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    “Not sure on the ‘solo sleeping bag’ one there, ….”

    Jessie,

    When your hunting the back country by yourself, it’s solo hunting, solo cooking, and solo camping. Nobody else around. Just you… and what ever critters live there.

  177. Him says:

    “even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented.”

    What? If this isn’t a lie it’s stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard. Who does it apply to? Can we dissolve both houses of congress on this basis? So parking inspectors can’t take a 2nd job or they’re a criminal? Really? Does not sound plausible.

  178. Him says:

    Woops, I read a little further and for your “over a million dollars” story you list over a million dollars in prize money, which you don’t suggest is prohibited.
    Apologies for assuming this was a serious post.

  179. Wow! With this kind of background, it seems like to me he’s now qualified to run for President.

  180. Dave Springer says:

    @Hoffer

    Engineers advise. Managers decide. In this case the engineers had probably come to be seen like The Boy Who Cried Wolf over those O-rings and management had become inured to the complaints. It was no one’s fault. The space shuttle was the most complex system ever produced by human endeavour. There were a million things that could go wrong on every mission. The amazing thing was how many missions were successful.

    You are a finger pointer obviously and probably the worst kind incapable of pointing the finger at himself. Insisting on blaming management probably also means you’re a peon who gets bossed around and resents it. Your attitude suggests you believe you should be the one that’s in charge. Poor DavidMHoffer. The world is so unfair to him.

    In fact the managers at NASA in the shuttle program did an extraordinarily good job as did the engineers and the technicians and every other person in the program. They deserve a medal but instead they get mewling finger pointing from weaklings who imagine themselves to be more competent.

  181. John Cooper says:

    Dave Springer wrote:

    I seriously doubt it was EPA forcing the changes to the CFC propellents and surface preparation on shuttle external fuel tanks.

    It’s too long to post here, but you can read what the EPA wrote about the External Tank in Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 221/Thursday, November 15, 2001. The short version:

    EPA agrees that an exception is necessary, but EPA disagrees with NASA’s proposed language. This language is far broader than what EPA concludes is actually necessary based on an evaluation of the information NASA presented. If EPA were to simply exempt all foams used for any applications associated with space vehicles EPA could be exempting products where there are already suitable substitutes. NASA only provided information concerning one particular type of foam used in applications associated with the Space Shuttle External Tank. Therefore, based on that information, through this action, EPA will modify § 82.66(c) to provide an exemption for foam products manufactured with or containing Class I substances that are used as part of the thermal protection system of external tanks for space vehicles and will add the definition of space vehicles found at § 63.742 to § 82.62. The exemption will be limited to the use of CFC–11 as a blowing agent and where no other CFCs are contained in the foam product.

    On the SRBs, not only was the putty changed, but the solvent used to clean the faying surfaces of the segments and the J-flap, and the J-flap adhesive were all changed. The J-flap adhesive used to be “Morestik 132″ which contained Trichloroethylene (ethane?), and they changed that to water-based “Morestik 227″. In 1995 the “Trike” was replaced with “REVILLE CLEANER, FORUMLA #02191″ and “”CLEANER, ORGANIC WITH D-LIMONINE” per “MSFC-SPEC-2490″. Atlantis had to be de-stacked in that same year because these new solvents and adhesives were suspect. In my opinion, NASA put political correctness over the safety the astronauts by changing all these tried-and-true chemicals without proper testing.

  182. Dave Springer says:

    Him says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:48 am

    >>even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented.”

    “What? If this isn’t a lie it’s stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard. Who does it apply to? Can we dissolve both houses of congress on this basis? So parking inspectors can’t take a 2nd job or they’re a criminal? Really? Does not sound plausible.”

    Whether it sounds plausible to you or not is, of course, of no consequence. It remains the law of the land regardless. The following specifically and much more surrounding it may help you understand what the law does and does not allow.

    http://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics/generalf.htm#42

    Teaching, speaking, and writing

    Paula works in the public information office of the Internal Revenue Service. A private trade association offers to pay her to teach a short course on a new taxpayer assistance program being implemented by the IRS.

    May Paula accept the offer? No.

    An employee may not receive compensation — including travel expenses for transportation and lodging — from any source other than the Government for teaching, speaking or writing that relates to the employee’s official duties. For most employees, teaching, speaking, or writing is considered “related to official duties” if–

    * The activity is part of the employee’s official duties;
    * The invitation to teach, speak, or write is extended primarily because of the employee’s official position;
    * The invitation or the offer of compensation is extended by a person whose interests may be affected substantially by the employee’s performance of his official duties;
    * The activity draws substantially on nonpublic information; or
    * The subject of the activity deals in significant part with agency programs, operations or policies or with the employee’s current or recent assignments.*

    Personally I don’t understand how “prizes” escape being defined as compensation. Money changing hands is money changing hands no matter what you call it. Honoraria are even more within the definition of compensation. But the law is abundantly clear on receiving travel expenses and it would appear that Hansen has been caught red-handed accepting those and failed to report them.

    Any questions?

  183. David says:

    Regarding the shuttle, sounds like the EPA did not broaden the exceptions to their guidelines (Laws) as the engineers wished, and management ignored the warnings.

  184. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    You are a finger pointer obviously and probably the worst kind incapable of pointing the finger at himself. Insisting on blaming management probably also means you’re a peon who gets bossed around and resents it.>>>

    Yes, with your megabrain intelligence you are capable of making a psychological assessment of me based on my views of the root cause of the shuttle disaster. Well I’m sorry to advise that I’ve spend most of my career in management. I’ve learned that when the people below me warn me about something, I had best listen and make 100% certain I understand why. I might over rule them based on business issues, but NEVER on technical issues. The biggest mistake any manager can make is called “shoot the messenger”. After a while, no more messengers show up and management becomes content that everything is fine when actually everything is off the rails and no one wants to say so because they will get shot. “Ignore the messenger” is nearly as bad.

    The failure of management in the case of the shuttle disaster is as classic a failure of management to listen to the expertise as one can find. The witch hunt that followed was exactly that; People in power looking for someone to blame. It happens every day in large organizations and in small ones when things go off the rails and incompetant managers proceed to cover their butts rather than admit their mistakes. Bad managers fix the blame. Good managers fix the problem. Excellent managers fix what caused the problem.

    In this case the problem was management. That you blindly defend management ad nauseum while attempting to point the finger at my personal role in life and my personal psychology suggests far more about you than it does about me. I feel rather sorry for the peons who had to report to your megabrain management skills.

  185. G. Karst says:

    Damage6 says:
    November 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Hansen is small potatoes. Most likely he’ll simply be fired and have his pension receded. The real target is the Great Gore-acle himself. If you don’t think there are attorneys right now figuring how to best go after this charlatan on the RICO statute you are sadly mistaken.

    You have cheered me up immensely, Thankyou! Now can you give us some indication that someone, somewhere, is actually pursuing such an investigation. In other words: What has made you so optimistic that justice will be done?! GK

  186. sunman42 says:

    Ooh, just a second: The list of prizes and honoraria is indeed impressive, and probably painful for anyone who disagrees with Hansen’s outspoken scientific conclusions. It appears, however, that the totality of his transgressions are one unreported (but very expensive) watch and two honoraria from talks that improperly advertised his NASA employment. Nowhere is it stated that each of the impressive list of other prizes was not reported, and the instructions for form SF278 (you can Google it; I did) say, ‘The term “honoraria” means payments of money or anything of value to you or your spouse for an appearance, speech, or article, excluding necessary travel expenses. See 5 CFR Part 2636.’ — so he didn’t need to report the “reimbursable” travel, as long as it was approved beforehand by his management.

    I don’t suggest he should be excused for those three transgressions, but given the length of the list, a few mistakes may just be human. Indeed, if he didn’t know in advance how those two talks were advertised, his transgression was in not immediately returning the honoraria when he found out, not in accepting the offer originally when he (supposition on my part) might have thought there would be no such advertising.

    Before you demonize your opponents, try out the simplest explanations. They may or may not be right, but you can’t exclude them until you prove otherwise.

  187. Damage6 says:

    It’s all part of the larger theme. AGW alarmism is just one progressive tactic among many failing ideas. The out of control nanny state with it’s ever expanding give aways and pandering to every percieved disadvantaged group is unsustainable. It’s a matter of mathmatics not ideology. Meanwhile everyday people who have been going about their lives working hard and doing the right thing are starting to wake up to the fact that despite the feel good rhetoric they’ve been had. Worse yet the stout auserity measures that are enevitably coming are going to very painfully illuminate the prolifergate curruption and cronyism that has squandered our future. Once that soaks in human nature will supply the rest. People facing a future of higher taxes and reduced benifits for the forsee-able future are going to start looking for people to punish. Politicians that want to stay employed are not going to be able simply sweep this under the rug and press on. It’s going to be a very bad environment to be someone who deliberately conflated sketchy science into the biggest scam in human history. There are a whole lot of people (like myself) who are never going to forget the threats, the demonizing, and the outright attacks of the reputations and livelihoods good honest people whose only crime was to insist on integrity in science. We are organizing and educating ourselves on the tactics that the progressives used to such telling effect. We are also going to remember that these attacks came from a small cabal of lying, hypocritical progressive elitist that have becoming fabulously wealthy and attempted to literally take over the world at the expense of good honest people. Many of us will never rest until the world can be assured that these progressive malcontents will never again be in a position to wreck the prosperity of the world and assault the freedoms and liberties we take for granted.

  188. Dave Springer says:

    sunman42 says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “Ooh, just a second: The list of prizes and honoraria is indeed impressive, and probably painful for anyone who disagrees with Hansen’s outspoken scientific conclusions. It appears, however, that the totality of his transgressions are one unreported (but very expensive) watch and two honoraria from talks that improperly advertised his NASA employment. Nowhere is it stated that each of the impressive list of other prizes was not reported, and the instructions for form SF278 (you can Google it; I did) say, ‘The term “honoraria” means payments of money or anything of value to you or your spouse for an appearance, speech, or article, excluding necessary travel expenses. See 5 CFR Part 2636.’ — so he didn’t need to report the “reimbursable” travel, as long as it was approved beforehand by his management.”

    Ooh. Just a second. NASA refused the FOIA request to provide documentation of what Hansen did and did not report. So we don’t know what he reported and what he didn’t. ATI is suing to get the information. NASA is stonewalling.

    One might wonder why NASA refused the request. I know I wonder why. This is exactly the kind of thing the FOIA was meant to cure – public servants abusing the public trust. If Hansen filled out all the proper paperwork and got approval then he’s likely off teh hook but someone’s ass is still grass because those prizes, gifts, and travel expenses are clearly both compensatory in nature and forbidden by ethics laws. Someone is going down for it. If not Hansen then whoever approved it. These are outrageous ethics violations.

  189. S Basinger says:

    Since Hansen’s violations are so flagrant and obvious and he hasn’t been fired yet, there must be some degree of complicity at the Director level at his employer. Sounds like it’s high time for a good old fashioned ‘follow the money’ inquiry to root out corruption at NASA.

  190. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 20, 2011 at 8:13 am

    “Yes, with your megabrain intelligence you are capable of making a psychological assessment of me”

    Correct.

    ” Well I’m sorry”

    Obviously.

    “to advise that I’ve spend most of my career in management.”

    It’s painfully obvious you aren’t a scientist or engineer. Managers have managers. Teh point still stands.

  191. chuck in st paul says:

    Shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
    [ yeah, as if ]

  192. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;

    Frankly, this is getting tiresome. Are you a man or a child? If you disagree with my arguments, then by all means, do so. Argue the facts, argue the logic. But if all you’ve got to bring to the table is insults, disgusting personal attacks and sarcasm, then of what use are you? You are nothiong but a bully, albeit a very intelligent one, who, when backed into a corner for having mouthed off about some opinion that he can’t defend, resorts to angrily attacking through ad hominems and actiing like a spoiled brat who, when he cannot have his way, throws a tantrum.

    You’ve made some very good points in multiple threads about science. It is unfortunate that your irrational and adversarial response to those you do not like or with opinions with which you disagree discredits you. You suffer from one of the most common problems that highly intelligent people have, which is that they grow over confident in their own abilities, and assume that when somebody disagrees with them, that the default reason is that the other person is wrong.

    Argue your position like a rational adult, or STFU.

  193. Justa Joe says:

    Olen says:
    November 19, 2011 at 8:19 am
    The leadership in NASA is contributing to Hansen’s activism by not enforcing the law and NASA policy. In doing so they are denigrating the good name of NASA.

    One can bet that Jimmie “Death Trains” Hansen has never been shy about pointing out to his would be superiors at NASA that he has some big friends in very high places, Gore, DNC, IPCC, 60 Minutes, ABC, NBC, the Kerry’s. the Kennedys, etc, etc… It’s doubtful that any aministrator wants any of that action.

  194. Tom Moser says:

    As a former, long time and proud NASA employee I am concerned that Hansen’s actions and NASA’s lack of action is putting NASA’s credibility at risk. NASA should (1) Require that Hansen’s work be peer reviewed for honesty and integrity, (2) make public any of Hansen’s findings that are found to be biased (or not honest), and (3) Require that Hansen abide by the law and NASA ethics, as all NASA employees should and most do.
    An honest assessment and determination of the effects of man produced CO2 on climate change is important to everyone on earth.

  195. Mac the Knife says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    November 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    In response to: California Angel says: November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am

    “Look darling, you’ve just snorted some strong stuff. It’ll take a while and perhaps some cold turkey to come down from all that fantasy-science. But in the long run it’s not good for you. Truth matters for your health. Believe me because I’ve been there myself and so have lots of us here. In your own time, read my own story, learn how to check evidence. Click my name. Hang in here, and listen.”

    Lucy,
    Your witty but measured response to ‘California Angel’ tickled and intrigued me! I tagged your name to visit your website, something I had not done previously.

    Kiddoo – Your website is a 12 Step Program for Recovering Warmists!!! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your progression from casual acceptance of the AGW meme, through a questioning search to understand increasingly glaring inconsistencies in the AGW debate, to a really well informed, mature, and entertaining educator of why the AGW hypothesis is unsupportable!!! Your storyline presentation is soooooo good, detailing your path to enlightenment with relevant links to supporting science at every nuanced turn. It is ‘readable’ at a mid high school comprehension level, yet provides links to the higher level analyses supporting your conclusions for the more advanced readers. You build your case ‘brick by brick’, with each set in high strength analytical ‘mortar’ before proceeding to the next. The end result is an enduring edifice, built on a solid foundation and rising to the unshakable conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is not supported by available data or analyses. Bravo! Encore! Ole! You should be awarded both ears and the tail from the AGW bull you so effectively challenged, gently but repeatedly skewered, and thoroughly dismantled!

    Your path to informed understanding is indeed similar to my own and many others. Thanks for the link, as I had been searching for a site that provided such a logical and easily readable story line progression of why the AGW hypothesis is falsified, with the supporting data appropriately sequenced. With your permission, I will direct others questioning the AGW meme to your site, just as I routinely do for WUWT.

  196. tomdperkins says:

    “In this case the engineers had probably come to be seen like The Boy Who Cried Wolf over those O-rings and management had become inured to the complaints. It was no one’s fault. ”

    The decision that was made was malignantly negligent enough someone should have done prison for it.
    While hindsight is 20/20, it was the correct foresight of the engineers that was ignored.

  197. JJThoms says:

    Amazing! He hides the Rolex just like the decline – in full public view!

    NASA scientist wins WWF conservation medal
    Posted on 21 November 2006 | 0 comments
    Gland, Switzerland – Renowned climate scientist Dr James Hansen is this year’s recipient of the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal, awarded annually by WWF for outstanding service to the environment.

  198. Peter Gleick says:

    [snip. Nice to see you're reading, but your ban has not been lifted. ~dbs, mod.]

  199. Horner accuses Hansen of receiving $1.2 million in outside income for work done as a federal employee. He does not note in the commentary (though it is stated in the lawsuit), that most of these monies were for international prize awards which, like a Nobel Prize, can be accepted by federal employees and do not count as ‘outside activity’ for which permission must be sought. The relevent federal ethics guidelines are quite explicit (see part d.1, and example 1). The four prizes in question (the Blue Planet Prize $550,000, the Heinz award $250,000, the Dan David award ($333,000?) and the Sophie Prize, $100,000) are all examples of an
    … award … made as part of an established program of recognition:
    (i) Under which awards have been made on a regular basis or which is funded, wholly or in part, to ensure its continuation on a regular basis; and
    (ii) Under which selection of award recipients is made pursuant to written standards.
    for which no prior permission is required.
    Thus the insinuation that Hansen might not have complied with ethics guidelines by not filing ‘Outside activity’ forms for these prizes (which are not required) is clearly misleading (forms would have been required for speaking engagements and the like which apparently total to only $48,000 over 4 years).
    Similarly, the claim in the lawsuit that Hansen received $720,000 from George Soros is simply fictitious.

  200. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenney Naumer;
    Nice try. In terms of the CAGW debate, the point is that Hansen is reaping huge financial rewards from his alarmism. His alarmism is based on his scientific results. If you cannot see the moral and ethical conflict that results, then you are welcome to continue sniping on about the fine points of law.

    For those of us who live in the real world, if you want someone to issue a press release saying they’ve studied the sky and it isn’t blue after all, but pink with wavy purple stripes and brown polka dots, you can get it done for a lot less than a million bucks.

  201. JJThoms says:

    For a lawyer this is outstandingly twisted:

    Failing to Report Gifts
    World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, which typically run $8,000 and up (2006), but which was not reported by Hansen on his SF 278 under “gifts”, which must be reported if valued at more than $260.
    ==========
    see my post above
    – the watch was part of the award “awarded annually by WWF for outstanding service to the environment.”
    It is NOT a gift it is an AWARD just like the monetary awards.

  202. Janice says:

    An email recently sent out where I work:

    Laboratory employees should not accept gifts from customers, suppliers, or vendors. Perishable food items such as tins of popcorn, boxes of candy, or cookies should be graciously discouraged, but need not be returned if they are of nominal value and can be shared by a Group, Division, or Directorate. Promotional items (i.e. hats, pens or paperweights with a company logo on them) may be accepted only if they are of nominal value and are not intended to influence your judgment. Items other than food or promotional items should be returned with an apologetic thank you note stating that company policy does not permit employees to accept such gifts. For additional guidance, please refer to the sections on Transactions and Interactions with Nongovernmental Employees and Relationships with Government Personnel contained in PD801, Standards of Conduct and Business Ethics, and P722 Kickback Prohibitions. We define nominal value as an unsolicited gift with a market value of $20 or less per occasion, aggregating to no more than $50 in a calendar year.

    Employees must use their best judgment and seek supervisory approval prior to accepting any supplier invitations to open houses or supplier-sponsored holiday events. Perception must always be considered in these situations. Clearly lavish or extravagant events must be avoided.

  203. @ davidmhoffer

    I prefer to rely on 98% of the world’s climate scientists for their take on global warming and what causes it.

  204. Smokey says:

    Tenney Naumer,

    You’re writing nonsense. I challenge you to name the “98% of the world’s climate scientists”.

    Name them, or lose any remaining credibility.

  205. Larry Butler says:

    When I was a “little people” GS-11 Metrologist for the US Navy, I couldn’t even let Hewlett-Packard or Tektronix buy me lunch!

  206. Myrrh says:

    Justa Joe says:
    November 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Olen says:
    November 19, 2011 at 8:19 am
    The leadership in NASA is contributing to Hansen’s activism by not enforcing the law and NASA policy. In doing so they are denigrating the good name of NASA.

    One can bet that Jimmie “Death Trains” Hansen has never been shy about pointing out to his would be superiors at NASA that he has some big friends in very high places, Gore, DNC, IPCC, 60 Minutes, ABC, NBC, the Kerry’s. the Kennedys, etc, etc… It’s doubtful that any aministrator wants any of that action.

    =============================================

    I don’t know if Gail has already given this page on Maurice Strong background, but connection to Gore is connection to Maurice Strong, very interesting background precis and an interview with him: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2605maurice_strong.html

    And this from a page which carries a cap and trade & Strong from a 1972 Beeb interview, the twenty year anniversary of the Copenhagen beginning held in Rio:

    ““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
    Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992

    http://www.infowars.com/maurice-strong-in-1972-isnt-it-our-responsibility-to-collapse-industrial-societies/

    Hansen has been at this game for a long time, I think it was in the seventies when he took his position anti-coal, then the scare put about was that pollution from coal would block out the Sun and bring on the next glacial.. Forty years of practice manipulating stories. I think their could be direct to Rockefellers link from that, don’t know, but he must have some serious backing to get away with saying what he has about it.

    http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Rockefeller_family_aides_anti-coal_movement_twice

    But, who’d know it to listen to Jay Rockefeller? http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/06/18/west-virginia-sen-jay-rockefeller-coal-and-climate-change-the-facts-are-already-changing/

  207. Myrrh says:

    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Stong_Gore_Cashing_In

    A fascinating read. The Gore and Strong duo scam artistes milking goverment for subsidies for junk technology and manipulating stock markets in 1995

  208. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenney Naumer says:
    November 21, 2011 at 9:24 am
    @ davidmhoffer
    I prefer to rely on 98% of the world’s climate scientists for their take on global warming and what causes it.>>>

    The 98% quote is fiction. It was a study done in such a manner as to exclude anyone with a contrary opinion in the first place. Just like the studies you see that are carefully contrived to be half truths. Dig into them, and you will discover, as I and anyone else who takes the time to investigate for themselves has, that the studies are without credibility. They are a fiction, just as your 98% number is.

    But believe what you will. The “majority” of scientists were quite certain that the only way to cure disease was to let the blood out of you. They claimed to be in the majority, but it was a sham all along and even the blood letters knew they were full of BS. The “majority” used to diagnose you through the bumps on your skull. The “majority” used to stop volcanoes from erupting by throwing virgins into them.

    Stop being a follower. Think for yourself. Either that, or cease being a shill for some interest group.

  209. @davidmhoffer, I am a shill for no one. I read voluminously on the subject. Some of what I read I repost on my blog (click on my name) — there are now more than 5,300 posts. I continue to read. The science is clear.

  210. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    Its all OK he is a good reservation Chief, self imprisoned for life by lies.
    An elected Chief of LIes, from the lie band of CO2 warriors.

  211. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenney Naumer says:
    November 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    @davidmhoffer, I am a shill for no one. I read voluminously on the subject. Some of what I read I repost on my blog (click on my name) — there are now more than 5,300 posts. I continue to read. The science is clear.>>>

    Clicked your name. Nice compilation of ad hominem attacks, ugly smears, and nasty accusations. No science.

    BTW, the science is in fact clear. CO2 effects are logarithmic. The discussion should have died on that point alone, and the mental gymnastics that alarmists such as yourself have to perform in order to ignore that fact are remarkable. It is no wonder that you folks always try and turn the discussion to tree ring data, polar bear populations and glacier thickness. Anything but the actual science.

    Not a shill? Your own website speaks plainly that either you are, or you’ve been fooled. Pick up a 1st yeat university text book on physics and work your way through it. Just repeating the smears of like minded people like you do on your site isn’t science, it is just regurgitated material in large volume. Quanitity does not equal quality.

  212. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Tenney Naumer.

    i see that you Studied Finance & Banking ….. Need I say more?

  213. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenney;
    Turns out Anthony posted a thread special for you. Have a good read. There’s your fictitious consensus right there.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/

  214. David, you seem to have missed these two paragraphs:

    A recent survey of climate scientists conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois found near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is happening.
    This new George Mason University study, however, using results from a national survey of the American public, finds that many Americans believe that most climate scientists actually disagree about the subject.

    David, I follow the consensus of the climate scientists, not that of the public.

    REPLY: Tenney, are you blind or just willfully obtuse? Read the section on how the 97% percent was derived. If it were the other way around, your and the Rommulans would be squealing like stuck pigs- Anthony

  215. davidmhoffer says:

    Tenney;

    Anthony beat me to the willfully obtuse…ok I would have said “blind”…comment. Really, read the article carefully. Read what it says instead of what you want it to say. The 97% is a total fiction. It wasn’t even a proper survey, it was just an invitation to respond. Of those that responded, almost all were excluded from the final results. If there really is a consensus, then why all the manipulation? Why the need to exclude so many respondents on feeble excuses and meaningless conditions?

    The truth is that there is huge disagreement amongst scientists. Exactly as the American public believes. The old addage you can’t fool all of the people all of the time is turning out to be true yet again. And your attempt to misdirect in regard to what that study and the article about it says shows that my original accusation has merit.

    You are just a shill.

  216. Blade says:

    Tenney Naumer [November 21, 2011 at 9:24 am] says: “I prefer to rely on 98% of the world’s climate scientists for their take on global warming and what causes it.”

    Tenney Naumer [November 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm] says: “A recent survey of climate scientists conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois found near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is happening. This new George Mason University study, however, using results from a national survey of the American public, finds that many Americans believe that most climate scientists actually disagree about the subject. … David, I follow the consensus of the climate scientists, not that of the public.”

    Rather than asking you about jumping off bridges, I offer you a perfect analogy

    Neo [November 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm] says:

    More UFOologists believe in UFOs than non-UFOologists

  217. Tell you what. Delete the words “It seems” from the beginning of the story. You’re confident, right?

    Accuse him. Don’t couch your story in weasel words. Accuse him. Tell the world.

  218. Diamond Double Bar says:

    Dr. Hansen appears to be violating government ethics laws, but this does not directly impact a more concerning legacy: his questionable treatment of data to support climate change models which are now driving public policy. Regrettably, even questioning his conclusions with competing data is not even entertained by the administration and the debate is tarnishing the reputation of NASA both domestically and internationally.

    A good article to read on this topic can be found in the 9/20/2011 Op Ed of Forbes on line by Larry Bell. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/09/20/sorry-but-with-global-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/) This particular article about solar influences on climate resonates because of relatively recent events in the NW US. (http://www.iafi.org/) Much of the NW was covered by a mile of ice up until 13,000 years ago (including Seattle and Spokane), so localized (and catestrophic0 warming has been occuring for much longer than humans have been involved in industrialization. What precipitated this change, or the multitude of climate changes in the 4.5B years of planet Earth before the growth of the human population?

    Recent data from NASA’s Mars Global and Surveyor missions show that the Mars poles have also been shrinking in the last three years. Several scientists have suggested that changes on both the Earth and Mars are due to changes in the solar irradiance which began to drop in the 1990’s (see National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html) Others, suggest that we may be experiencing both a solar cycle (11 years) as well as Milankovitch cycles (20,000 – 100,000 yrs). It is speculated that the effects of the sun could have been responsible for these large scale changes before the advent of fossil fuel combustion, making the human contribution exceedingly low. It would seem that before the US and Europe make unilateral environmental policy changes which significantly and adversely impact economic development and prosperity, that their respective governments would openly discuss the “real facts” and the validity of the models.

    Hopefully, those who propose that humans are primarily changing the climate would welcome this open discussion, rather than to vilify those who question the data (which is part of the scientific process we teach our children). I propose that the President welcome this openly public discussion and have it sponsored by the OSTP. Not arriving at the “right” answer and not having it supported by all sectors (public and private) which must implement changed policy, will have a chilling impact on both the scientific process followed in this nation, as well as our prosperity. It already has.

    Note; It is interesting that China is investing heavily in both artic and anarctic research (oil and climate change). (http://www.chinare.gov.cn/en/ and http://www.barentsobserver.com/china-to-boost-arctic-research.4781463.html and personal communications with scandanavian colleagues) If it is found that the sun is our primary climate driver, regardless of what humans do, then China can be reassured that their current policies would give themselves an economic advantage. Can the US afford the risk of being wrong? Being right means jobs, new technologies, education, abilty to explore the universe, a good quality of life, and the luxury of leisure time to really contemplate the future of humanity.

  219. George says:

    Man, I got accused of being on the payroll of the Koch brothers for getting a $500 honararim from the Cato Institute for a paper on scientific ethics – which primarily focused on problems in MEDICAL research, but mentioned ClimateGate in passing. What kind of stooge does that make Hansen?

Comments are closed.