Hansen finally ‘Muzzled’ by Obama?

Hansen’s resignation from NASA GISS may not be what it seems

Guest Post by Chris Horner, CEI

So, NASA’s in-house celebrity activist James Hansen says the following in explaining his departure from a lucrative perch — salary alone: $180k per year — one that proved extremely lucrative while there was a useful foil in the White House:

‘As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,’ he told the Times.”

Hogwash.

Not that “Job 1″ for Hansen at NASA was attentiveness to ethics guidelines or anything, but the rules say no such thing. See 5 C.F.R. Part 6901.103 (c) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805.

Indeed, on top of that cool $1 million-plus in outside cash tossed Hansen’s way after he ratcheted up the alarmism and — more important to many — politicking, he presided over an elaborate document removal/destruction operation run by his protégé and presumptive successor, Gavin Schmidt.

Now, we are to believe that Hansen is so concerned with his ethical obligations as a government employee that he is willing to operate by his own set of rules that, this time, are more restrictive than the real ones.

The fact is that Hansen, as a government employees, is not barred from testifying against the government. Ethics rules applying to Hansen at NASA simply say that he must seek permission to testify, just as he (usually, but not always) sought and, as the world knows in deed if not according to the rhetoric, received permission for his other global warming advocacy.

That requirement that Hansen first receive permission before testifying exists “to prevent an employee from using public office for the employee’s personal private gain”. Which (chuckle) is the same rationale behind the other ethics provisions under which Hansen sought and was routinely granted permission to make lots of outside money on his advocacy. Under George W. Bush.

So Hansen had no reason to believe he would not be permitted to do as he says he wishes.

Unless…

Ah, yes. Hansen’s current attention-getting story, when squared with the ethics rules, is that he has been denied approval to serve as an expert witness per 5 C.F.R 6901.103(d) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805(c) (serving as a fact witness requires overcoming no such impediments).

Further curious is that his testimony would be a particularly easy approval if “the subject matter of the testimony does not relate to the employee’s official duties”. Which we know would be the case — despite our having argued the absurdity of the idea — because since 2006 he has been absolutely cleaning up with outside income only made acceptable by the supposed reality that his various speeches and prizes, etc., were apparently deemed by NASA as not relating to his official duties. Under Bush.

But now, suddenly, under President Obama, it seems that the subject matter of his activism would indeed relate to his professional duties. Per the administration. According to Hansen’s clear implication. Huh.

If we are to believe Hansen — and face it, we all want to believe him — he was denied permission to serve as an expert witness. If this occurred, it is clear that this is a recent development. That is, during the Obama administration.

Which administration is, apparently, “muzzling” Hansen.

Surely you’ve seen the stories.

Of course, it could be that Mr. Hansen is talking through his hat. Some might argue, not for the first time. For example, what case or cases did he inquire about? Or, did someone who mattered merely let on that, if he asked to testify against the administration, they would deep-six the idea?

It is entirely plausible that Hansen has simply found that his NASA gig isn’t what it used to be in better times for the global warming advocate. Times when, for example, the media had no torn allegiances between Hansen’s bombast and the White House.

For example, that whole “Bush muzzling Hansen” mythology was just that; useful to everyone pushing it to superstitiously or conveniently explain the world, but not supported by much evidence (and belied by thousands of interviews).

Notwithstanding this, it remains worth noting that Team Obama putting the squeeze on Hansen is far less far-fetched.

Sure, early on their Department of Justice did work hard to protect him, a valuable advocate in pushing “the cause,” from having his ethics records disclosed to us, maintaining specious legal claims well after we filed suit.

Then, after Hansen made a pain of himself by drawing even more unwanted attention to the festering Keystone XL pipeline decision, getting arrested with (other) celebrities  in front of the White House, the caginess suddenly evaporated. I received a call asking where I would like to have a messenger deliver the entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records we had sought.

Which is how we, and anyone else interested, learned about just how lucrative Hansen’s NASA employment had become for him.

So long as the right foil was in the White House. Then, a government astronomer could make an astronomical sum off of global warming alarmism. Whatever the rules said. Maybe Keystone XL really is proving to be the “game-changer” the greens have said.

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

Christopher Horner is a fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author, his most recent book being “The liberal War on Transparency

About these ads

174 thoughts on “Hansen finally ‘Muzzled’ by Obama?

  1. Ouch!
    Great post as always, Chris.
    N.B.: typo on employee(s).
    Hope the MSM has the cojones to broach the subject, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  2. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see how Hansen’s replacement turns out to know if there’s really a sea-change going on.

  3. Clearly you are privy to currents in the “politics” of this in a way not many are. And the nuances of events such as you mention, can be very telling.

    I can see every reason, if Obama, or his coterie, have any alertness, for them to be going cool on extreme warmth and any policy based on it. But, at the least, there are mixed messages on this.

    I wonder if Hansen and CAGW and/or general Environmentalism are joined at the hip. Could it be that Hansen, having redefined the lunatic fringe, is now to be utilized as a counterpoint to the more “reasonable” propositions of the Administration? On the established principle that having gained structural positioning, the application of the full agenda can proceed?

  4. Hansen is a great example of a privileged government employee taking advantage of his position without any fear of reprimand. Maybe it is because of the fear of the effort to fire a government employee or just the Republicans going all wobbly when anyone says boo about environmental matters.

  5. “Hansen finally ‘Muzzled’ by Obama?”

    I assume that the trailing question mark is the standard journalistic technique of pointing out for the reader that the following article contains no facts whatsoever.

    As is badly written. With odd partial. Sentences.

    I would recommend it be removed, rewritten, and resubmitted once some actual content can be found.

  6. Could it possibly be? Could it be, that this just might have something to do with “Trains of Death”? Now, I know that that naturally helmet headed astronaut wannabe, James Hansen, referred to “Coal Trains of Death.” But what’s really the difference between a black solid and a black liquid? Sure, Obama wants to kill Keystone. But, so what? If the oil flows on tank cars on tracks what’s to keep, “I don’t care if I get a criminal record at my age”, Hansen, from bloviating about ‘oil trains of death?’ Axing Keystone hurts the public and the economy (which is, after all, doing “Fine”), but who does it help? Warren Buffett? The, oh so savvy, fairly recent purchaser of … a major railroad right in that area? Now, when Obama says he wants the top 1% to give a little back one has to comprehend what Obama’s definition of the word ‘top’ is. There’s the top and then there’s the tippy top. Now, Buffett’s assuredly in the tippy top; the .0000001% tippy top. The very top of the tippy top top. And, in Obama’s book, there’s different rules for that crowd. Hansen can stand in the way of Keystone, but they’re not going to take a chance with him standing in the way of Buffett.

  7. That was my read on the situation. Hansen got Das Boot. Quietly. But there’s the hoof print on his a** for all to see.

  8. I am confused. If you know how lucrative Hansen’s con job has been – then why don’t you spell it out in the article?

    BTW – I am a loyal reader of WUWT, and a critic of Hansen, but something seems to be missing here.

  9. I think Hansen’s realised that, with warming stalled, there is a limit on how far he can go on creating a false warming trend with his adjustments. (Particularly since some of us are now monitoring what he has been doing).

    Instead, we’ll see him adopting a much broader position arguing for political and environmental objectives.(Which of course were his hidden objectives all along).

  10. “…So long as the right foil was in the White House”

    Such a common story. Hansen Is now like the preachers of the 5th Monarchy after Oliver Cromwell won: an annoying destabilising force difficult to neutralise.

  11. The Obama administration is looking for a way out of the “Climate Change” fiasco. Hansen is a fanatic who helped start the mania. It seems an increasing percentage of the technical savvy public are become aware of the facts and issues associated with the AGW mania. There is no global warming crisis. Regardless of the science, the US public will not support sending 1% of the US GDP to Asia, China, and Africa to be spent on greenscams.

    1) There has now been 15 years with no appreciable global temperature rise.

    2) The AGW predicted tropical troposphere hot spot has not occurred. No warming of the tropical troposphere in 20 years of measurement.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    3) Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean temperature changes indicates the planet resists forcing changes by increasing or decrease clouds in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. (See link to Lindzen and Choi’s paper below.)
    4) There are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 was high and the planet was cold and periods when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm.
    5) There are cyclic periods of warming followed by cooling in the paleo record have the same pattern as the 20th century warming. These past cyclic warming and cooling events were not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

    6) Point 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 support the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056% will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand.
    7) Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse at 0.12% to increase yield and reduce growing times. Laboratory experiments indicate cereal crop yields will increase by roughly 40% if atmospheric CO2 increases from 0.028% to 0.056%.
    8) China and India have absolutely refused to limit CO2 emissions. China is now the largest emitter of CO2 in the world. China, India, and Africa have request $600 billion/year and the Western countries to reduce their own carbon dioxide emissions by 80%, before they will enter into a binding CO2 limiting deal. That is ludicrous. An 80% reduction in carbon dioxide will turn the Western countries into third world countries.

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper … …We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct.

  12. So what happens now?
    a) Hansen is thrown under a bus and all his tampering is immediately removed. Hey folks, surprise, this is what the data really look like.
    b) NASA slowly, over time, reduces the false warming trend.
    c) NASA continues ramping up the trend.

  13. The position is far biggger that the man.

    James Hansen, NASA, could demand audiences and platforms for his views.

    Barmy old Jimmie, the dude in the crumpled hat, can’t.

  14. Hansen claiming things that are not true is rather typical of his style, is it now?

  15. Has Hansen and his minions destroyed the temperature data set beyond repair? If it can be put back to “real temperatures”, will it ever be put back? Will climate “science” ever just report the facts and readings without “adjusting” the data to fit? Are the days of any “honest science” over?

  16. Linked and quoted at Roger Pielke, Jr, as comment on his Hansen hagiography.

    Competent researcher, politician, manipulator, ‘Yes.’
    Neither scientist nor positive model for my grand-children, thank you.

    re politician/researcher Hansen
    Freeman Dyson had him pegged, years ago: mis-direction not from AlGore, but Hansen.
    Also, “For example, that whole “Bush muzzling Hansen” mythology was just that; useful to everyone pushing it to superstitiously or conveniently explain the world, but not supported by much evidence (and belied by thousands of interviews).” – Chris Horner AT

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/

  17. I am curious, why has no one called for Federal investigation of these adjustment Hansen has made? I still dont understand how historical records can be adjusted – the tempatures were what they were, some Senator at min should be asking questions

  18. He hasn’t needed his salary for a long time. When I heard him speak in snowy Atlanta (at the end of February) soon after the publication of “Storms of My Grandchildren”, it seemed clear to me that was driving a lot of his activism. Well, that and how lucrative it was. He left a day early to beat the snow and get to Washington for the protest at the Capitol Hill coal plant.

    He may indeed be feeling some heat from the gov’t and figures his job is getting in the way of his activism. I’m sure he won’t have much trouble making more money if he wants it.

    He’s certainly not doing very well in getting the world to cut back on CO2 releases, I don’t expect that to improve any time soon, especially since I went back to Georgia this year and found it still snows in March.

  19. Maybe Hansen is planning to be an expert witness in a lawsuit filed against NASA GISS over tampering with government temperature data.

  20. “If we are to believe Hansen — and face it, we all want to believe him — he was denied permission to serve as an expert witness. If this occurred, it is clear that this is a recent development. That is, during the Obama administration.”

    WHAT???

    “Climate change protesters’ anger was justifiable, says Nasa scientist”
    Tim Webb
    The Guardian, Monday 29 November 2010 15.58 EST

    The anger of 114 activists who planned to break into a coal plant near Nottingham was understandable because of the “lies” told by governments about climate change, Nasa’s top scientist told the trial of 20 climate campaigners.

    Professor James Hansen, the NASA scientist credited with doing the most to raise awareness of climate change, had flown from the US to be the star witness.

    Twenty activists are accused of conspiracy to trespass on private property. They were arrested last Easter before the group were able to carry out their plan to force E.ON’s coal plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar to shut down for a week.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/29/climate-change-activists-trespass-charges

  21. “Hansen finally ‘Muzzled’ by Obama?
    Posted on April 8, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    Hansen’s resignation from NASA GISS may not be what it seems

    Guest Post by Chris Horner, CEI”

    This piece by anti-climate-science activist Horner, who regularly gets his space here on Anthony Watts’s blog, of the industry funded lobby group “Competitive Enterprise Institute”, which is known for its disinformation campaigns regarding results from scientific research that are inconvenient for some economic, political, and ideological interests, consists mostly of speculation, with some links to previous opinion pieces and unproven accusations by Horner. It probably is just an advertisement for his book anyway.

    Indeed, on top of that cool $1 million-plus in outside cash tossed Hansen’s way…

    Envious?

    Dogs may bark but the caravan of climate science moves on.

    REPLY: You are an employee at GISS, why not tell us the story you know rather than cast aspersions? – Anthony

  22. I really can’t follow this one. The abruptness of Hansen’s departure and his inability to articulate future plans probably indicate this wasn’t his idea. However, the “usefulness ended” theory runs afoul of the fact that he certainly was not politically useful to the Bush administration, yet he survived and thrived. I’m guessing the burden of defending the obvious conflict between Hansen’s outside antics and his official government agency duties simply became to pesky for NASA to bear.

  23. Obummer’s strategy is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Obummer himself does the UD part (look at the uncertainty & doubt businesses now deal with), while he let’s the MSM & Hansen, Mann, etc do the F part. If Hansen is excused, many more are waiting to take his place.

  24. Those with normalcy bias actually have delusions of democracy. We have a two party puppet show on autopilot to Armageddon as an unelected, feudal, one-world government. Under Bush the Elder climate research was ramped from $20 million per year to over $1 billion per year. All of the EXCESS spending was for “Carbon Endangerment Findings”. And as we all know, if all you search for is danger, danger is all that you will find.

    Under the next puppet POYUS, Slick Willie, the COE of Fannie Mae set up the forced, Enron-styled housing funding frauds and also got the patent for the Carbon trading fraud. After Franklin Raines got $90 mill for his five year plan of housing market destruction, he joined the Carbon fraud market, see http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=168077

    Under baby Bush (aka Shrub) the Carbon frauds continued with $2 billion in endangerment findings and EPA expansions into other energy related issues with the basic Earth elements of Sulphur and Lead. The COG, (aka Continuation Of Government) requires a seamless expansion of executive power. As the great feudalist Lenin said, “crush the middle class between the twin millstones of taxation and regulation”….all in the name of the children and the environment. The “Super Senate” gang of eight, and the “Super Governor” gang of ten federally selected regional governors, are part of the COG effort to streamline the clumsy Constitutional restrictions to the pending feudal-federal take-over. Perhaps the useful idiot of GISS is no longer useful in that effort.

  25. Bottom line, he’s not content with the level of extremism he was permitted. Under Bush and under Obama. He will be more into the paid expert witness and public speaker gig and he will always be an activist masquerading as a scientist. Good thing that the more extreme he becomes, the less effective the mask.

  26. Real scientists are no doubt increasingly seeing, far too belatedly to do much good, just how bad Hansen is for all of science–about as bad as Obama is for American and global unity. Chris Horner seems dedicated to the investigatory line of “follow the power” (in this case, that of the President), but Hansen is like North Korea–he doesn’t care about who has the power, he has his “mission” to perform (against all obstacles). It suits his purpose, in the face of all the “jackals” nipping at his “science”, to redefine his favored combat arena, to concentrate on the larger war, on the larger stage. He probably sees his bread as best buttered now by working as a well-paid, established if not popular, speaker on the circuit (speaking to the choir, rather than before all those exasperating “inquiring minds”). Like every fool who finds public success, he thinks he knows what he is doing.

  27. Might this allow him to “shake down” corporations and companies? Many activists will impose themselves in companies and demand fees or funding. If the company does not agree, these activist will begin a publicity campaign against the company. This guy could accuse a company or corporation of being a “Planet Killer” and the media will go along with him. Stock price could suffer as well as the dividend and investors will back away not wanting to be associated with an evil “Planet Killer” Some believe it’s better to pay the blackmail rather than have the company image tarnished. Stay tuned folks.

  28. REPLY: You are an employee at GISS, why not tell us the story you know rather than cast aspersions? – Anthony

    For one thing, because you and most of your followers here are not seriously interested in it anyway. And after all the smear against climate scientists, Hansen or others, all the distortions of facts and science, which has come from your blog, you don’t need to pretend you were.

    You are not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.

    You asked me.

    REPLY: “You are not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.”

    And yet, here you are. But let’s take that at face value and say that since you aren’t really here to converse by your own admission, your real motive for being here must be something else. Check. – Anthony

  29. It would help if the post was written in English. The audible equivalent to this is fingernails on a blackboard.

  30. “…presumptive successor, Gavin Schmidt.”

    REALLY?? If his work with “Model E” is any indication, he shouldn’t be in charge of anything…

  31. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 6:48 am

    “You are not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.”

    I take this as an admission that he really doesn’t know anything of interest to anyone…

  32. Jan-

    We are all interested in truth and the integrety of science. Can you provide the real data as collected for all sites in your database, please?

  33. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 6:48 am

    REPLY: “You are not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.”

    And yet, here you are. But let’s take that at face value and say that since you aren’t really here to converse by your own admission, your real motive for being here must be something else. Check. – Anthony

    Real motive? More snip fodder for his blog?

    Jan, the funny thing is, your original post was the first thing I’ve seen by you here that I couldn’t really disagree with. All you basically said (minus the colorful descriptives and elaborations) boiled down to ‘this piece consists mostly of speculation.’ True enough.

    Why not quit while you’re ahead for once?

  34. If the Obama administration is going to get cap-and-trade or a carbon tax enacted, they have to tightly control the media coverage and spin. Perhaps Hansen is too much of a lightning rod for the opposition? Perhaps they want stealth alarmists pushing their position instead?

  35. Jan-

    We agree on this: “This piece by anti-climate-science activist Horner, who regularly gets his space here on Anthony Watts’s blog, of the industry funded lobby group “Competitive Enterprise Institute”, which is known for its disinformation campaigns regarding results from scientific research that are inconvenient for some economic, political, and ideological interests, consists mostly of speculation, with some links to previous opinion pieces and unproven accusations by Horner. It probably is just an advertisement for his book anyway.”

    That said, this does not create an atmosphere where the real scientists fall to their level and do thing like not provide supporting data for their claims. Can you do that? Please…??? The real actual, uncorrected data.

  36. Anthony Watts wrote:

    And yet, here you are. But let’s take that at face value and say that since you aren’t really here to converse by your own admission, your real motive for being here must be something else. Check. – Anthony

    Very clever. Now you have exposed me. Not.

    When I’m not interested in a conversation with some people about specific matters it doesn’t mean I will refrain from any comment when an anti-climate-science activist writes a propaganda piece that mostly consists of speculation and smear. That’s all. Whatever you suspect about some sinister “real motive” on my side.

    And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. I am not a federal employee. It’s not the first time I have told you that. Nevertheless, you keep repeating the incorrect information here.

    REPLY: Since you won’t provide an insider’s view to Hansen’s resignation motvations, but only offer blustery rhetoric, I’d say the speculation hit the mark pretty well.

    As for “I am not employed at GISS” I call bullshit on that, you are listed in the GISS Personnel Directory here:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/

    Perlwitz, Jan P. COL 5607

    The public info link to your listing says:

    GISS Personnel Directory
    Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz

    Affiliation: Columbia University

    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    2880 Broadway
    New York, NY 10025 USA

    E-mail: jan.p.perlwitz@nasa.gov
    Phone: 212-678-5607

    So while your affiliation might be Columbia university, so is Jim Hansen’s whose professional web page is at Columbia

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

    But he’s also employed at NASA GISS.

    – Anthony

  37. @Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 6:48 am

    “…are not seriously interested in it anyway.”

    I am.

    I would like to hear about how GISS is structured, the number and type of people who work there, for how long, when and what they were recruited for, whether there is a unanimity of opinion on AGW, if there are debates within GISS on this generally, and on procedures relating to it, what the normal role and interests are of those who work there, how much collaboration with others outside GISS there is, whether there is any restructuring going on or anticipated, and how you view the role of GISS in AGW policy now and in the future. And anything else that might occur to you, about your personal interests and role, and generally.

    Naturally, if you willing to give people such a guided tour, and add some of your own reflections, this would be of great general interest. If it was in the form of a constructed Mission Statement or the like, all nicely sanitized by PR to render it effectively dead, there is no point. If you would do this – and were allowed to do it properly – it would be greatly appreciated.

  38. I think he’s pro-nuke and Obama doesn’t like nuke power, period.
    It seems to me most professional environmentalists are also anti-nuke.
    Has the prez ever had any photo ops at a nuke power plant to show support?
    cn

  39. Jan P Perlwitz says April 8, 2013 at 6:48 am

    For one thing, because you and most of your followers here are not seriously interested in it anyway. …

    Au contraire mon ami; I am willing to settle for nothing less than the pure, unvarnished TRVTH.

    .

  40. The ‘take away’ I think (and possibly missed by some in their haste to fulfill their “op-ed functionary roles”):

    Then, after Hansen made a pain of himself … the caginess [of the WH, NASA, et al?] suddenly evaporated. I received a call asking where I would like to have a messenger deliver the entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records we had sought.

    Which is how we, and anyone else interested, learned about just how lucrative Hansen’s NASA employment had become for him.

    .

  41. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 7:34 am

    …And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS…

    —-

    Oh, did you get the boot too?

  42. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 6:48 am

    REPLY: You are an employee at GISS, why not tell us the story you know rather than cast aspersions? – Anthony

    For one thing, because you and most of your followers here are not seriously interested in it anyway.

    I’m interested, I don’t look to Chris Horner to write something that doesn’t show his biases or bitterness.

    Is Hansen going to remain at Columbia or is he completely retiring to become a full/part time activist? Who’s going to replace him at GISS? At Columbia? What sort of changes do you expect to see at GISS?

    Why now? He’s old enough and clearly more interested in being on the speaking circuit and working with other activists that I’m surprised he didn’t leave NASA a couple years ago. Is he going to leave quiet or with something like a farewell address to Congress?

  43. As for I am not employed at GISS I call bullsh!t on that, you are listed in the GISS Personnel Directory here:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/

    Perlwitz, Jan P. COL 5607

    Translation – he works for GISS via Columbia University where his salary and benefits are paid for by our Tax Dollar$ funneled from NASA/GSFC (and likely other government sources) along with exorbitant tuition and fees charged to kids and their parents by Columbia Univer$ity.

    (Someday, taxpayers will be saved a tremendous amount of money by moving GISS completely out of NYC…)

  44. Obama cant talk liberal on Gun Control and then get tough and bomb North Korea.
    Perhaps Obama is getting cold feet on Climate Change. Enviromental voters he dont need them anymore.Questions about Climate Sensitivity and High Energy Prices.
    Once Hansen is in the witness box Smart US government Lawyers start asking about the times he was in charge and rip him to pieces.

  45. Jan P Perlwitz

    I would like to know why Giss believe they are the ‘starting’ post of increasing temperatures when it is clear they are merely a ‘staging’ post of the increased warmth that commenced in the 1690′s.
    Has anyone at Giss written about the causes?

    tonyb

  46. CEI’s Chris Horner said,

    [all bold emphasis by me – John Whitman]

    Sure, early on their [Obama's administration] Department of Justice did work hard to protect him, a valuable advocate in pushing “the cause,” from having his ethics records disclosed to us, maintaining specious legal claims well after we filed suit.

    Then, after Hansen made a pain of himself by drawing even more unwanted attention to the festering Keystone XL pipeline decision, getting arrested with (other) celebrities in front of the White House, the caginess suddenly evaporated. I received a call asking where I would like to have a messenger deliver the entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records we had sought.

    - – - – - – -

    Chris Horner,

    I agree with you that it is unlikely to be coincidence. Great find! And I appreciated your posting style, subtle is effective in this case.

    What is CEI’s plan to release the ‘entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records’ which you have finally received from the Federal government? Very soon, I hope!

    John

  47. Anthony Watts wrote:

    REPLY: Since you won’t provide an insider’s view to Hansen’s resignation motvations, but only offer blustery rhetoric, I’d say the speculation hit the mark pretty well.

    You certainly have some opinion. However, you haven’t even told yet what your speculation is what my “real motive” was. All you said is it “must be something else”, which is just innuendo. So what is it, supposedly?

    As for “I am not employed at GISS” I call bullshit on that, you are listed in the GISS Personnel Directory here:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/

    Everyone who has an office at GISS whether employed with NASA or not, is listed there.

    Others here have figured out, what institution employs me. Why not you? It’s really not difficult. Just click on my name in the directory, and it’s going to stare you in the face.

    REPLY:
    You say “I am not employed at GISS”, yet concede you have an office there. So are you working gratis? I doubt it. The blurred lines of who funds who and who pays who in your academic hive there are part of the reason for distrust of GISS in general. What part of Hansen Inc. is Columbia, what part of Hansen Inc. is NASA GISS federal money, what part of Hansen Inc. is NGO funds and donations? What part do you get? Your web page says one thing, you say another. I suggest you get your presentations straight. If you aren’t part of GISS then the best thing to do is have yourself removed from the personnel directory. I’ll be willing to concede the point that you are not employed there if I see your name removed. Please advise when this is done. – Anthony

  48. You gotta love it when people like Jan P Perlwitz show up in this site with nothing, Budda, Boom.

  49. @ Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 7:34 am

    I now have a problem. You previously said that you are not prepared to say anything much about the goings on at GISS because no-one is “seriously interested”. Obviously you were not referring to Hansen since people plainly are.

    What were you referring to if not GISS itself? And now you say you do not have a formal association with it? I actually – believe it or not – took you at your word and expressed sincere interest. Was that a waste of time? Would you like to explain?

  50. Anthony Watts wrote:

    I see you have added something to your last reply.

    So while your affiliation might be Columbia university, so is Jim Hansen’s whose professional web page is at Columbia

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

    But he’s also employed at NASA GISS.

    James Hansen has been an adjunct professor at Columbia University.

    James Hansen’s affiliation listed in the GISS directory doesn’t say “Columbia University”, it says “NASA”, since he was a federal employee with NASA. In contrast, my entry in the GISS directory clearly states “Columbia University” as my affiliation, but not “NASA”.

    Quite a number of scientists working at GISS are actually Columbia University employees, based on a collaborative agreement between CU and NASA.

  51. Jan-

    You seem to be ignoring my request for data. Isn’t that more important than the sniping?

  52. Friends:

    This is a good week.
    Today is only Monday and already I have had two wonderful pieces of genuine humour from contributors to WUWT.

    I was moved to write to applaud the truly wonderful and hilarious satire about fungal toe infection and Mann’s hockey stick from Tom J at April 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/07/hockey-bazinga/

    I did not think anything could be funnier than that, but – as they say – truth is often stranger than fiction, and Tom J was making a deliberate joke.

    But that joke has been surpassed as a source of side-slapping merriment in this thread by Jan P Perlw1tz trying to defend James Hansen who has been emitted from NASA GISS.

    The execrable defending the excrement. You couldn’t make it up.

    Richard

  53. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:04 am

    You certainly have some opinion. However, you haven’t even told yet what your speculation is what my “real motive” was. All you said is it “must be something else”, which is just innuendo. So what is it, supposedly?

    —-

    Looks like it’s to play stupid guessing games.

  54. Obama is no math and science whiz. Maybe he just finally figured out Global Warming is a hoax. After all. even the blind squirrel occasionally gets the…..

  55. Jan P Perlwitz is “a working climate scientist.” according to his blog. Therefore his presence here can be seen a his fight to continue the lavish funding of his religion. On his blog he is see he is a ‘Temperature Standstill Denier’ and he tells us that black is white and 1 + 1 = 27746585.

  56. Anthony Watts wrote:

    You say “I am not employed at GISS”, yet concede you have an office there. So are you working gratis?

    Of course not. My salary is funded like the salary of most of the scientific researchers with Columbia University affiliation, having an office at GISS or at some other building of the university campus. It’s financed with soft money from time-limited grants coming from different federal agencies.

    What part do you get? Your web page says one thing, you say another.

    What are you talking about? My affiliation in the GISS directory says, “Columbia University”, I say “Columbia University”. How do I say another thing compared to what is said in the directory?

    I’ll be willing to concede the point that you are not employed there if I see your name removed. Please advise when this is done.

    Now, this request is just ridiculous.

    REPLY: OK then, since that is ridiculous you have settled the issue. You are employed at NASA GISS – Anthony

  57. lurker passing through, laughing says:
    April 8, 2013 at 4:56 am
    Hansen claiming things that are not true is rather typical of his style, is it now?
    ===================

    Was going to say the same thing myself.

    Just like Mann and his unsupported conclusions about Big Oil funding.

    No data, other than fabricated data to support the conclusions. Same modus operandi, different context. Creating fake memes for their minions and acolytes to propagate to delude a) the sheeple and b) the crap and/or “too busy to get into it more thoroughly” scientists.

    I guess that’s how their brains work. Maybe they actually do think it’s all true, and need some kind of therapy ?

  58. By the way, for all those parents like myself out there with college age kids, check out Columbia University’s tuition and fees:

    http://sfs.columbia.edu/

    By my tally, it costs about $50-60,000 to attend Columbia for ONE year. Multiply by four. Add in the expense of being in New York City.

    NASA needs to move GISS OUT of Columbia and OUT of NYC…perhaps to North Dakota??? Much cheaper to do research there…

  59. Anthony,

    Lest Perlwitz try to wiggle too much out of being officially in GISS organization, here is some info from GISS’s website.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/

    GISS works cooperatively with area universities and research organizations, most notably with Columbia University. Many of our personnel are members of Columbia’s Earth Institute, Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR), Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and/or Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. We also collaborate with researchers and educators at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, the City College of New York, the American Museum of Natural History and elsewhere.

    and

    GISS Personnel Directory

    Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz
    Affiliation: Columbia University

    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    2880 Broadway
    New York, NY 10025 USA

    E-mail: *******@nasa.gov

    Jan is, in GISS’s own terminology, a member of GISS through his position in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. So he is officially on staff of GISS and his salary is apparently funded through Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics.

    Also Note : Perlwitz has a NASA email address.

    Perlwitz is denying his membership in GISS? He doesn’t understand his own position in GISS?

    John

  60. Bob says: “Hansen is a great example of a privileged government employee taking advantage of his position without any fear of reprimand.

    ???

    I beg to differ. “Great example”??? Hansen is a twat. He is the very worst example. He has been an idiot on climate … I could go on, but the key thing is that as I put on my blog “another one bites the dust”.

    I think the euphemism is: “he’s opted to spend more time with the environment”. In other words, he’s been booted out into the wilderness to be eaten alive by the midges.

  61. @Jan P Perlwitz

    I find this blog and its readers are fair and are willingly to politely allow you to freely and openly comment. However, the level of skepticism is high and the tolerance for spin and BS are low.

    The moderators here do a good job of keeping the discussion civil and other commenters will call-out posters who are out of line.

    Go on, make an honest post and see. Be careful about mixing facts with opinion, however, or trying to pass off opinion as fact. Commentary, by its very nature, is subjective and opinionated. Facts however, are not.

    In other words, you would be more than welcome to post here, not only as a commenter but as a guest poster.

  62. Jan P Perlwitz, which of the following is smear?

    * Hansen is an astronomer.

    * Hansen, in 1967, claimed that Venus was hot because of dust.

    * Hansen’s model was used by Rasool & Schneider to predict another ice age back in 1971.

    * Hansen once said that AGW would lead to the oceans boiling. The IPCC says that this claim is not supported in the literature and is highly unlikely [pdf] and even the atmospheric physicist and Warmist Sir John Houghton says there is “no possibility” of runaway greenhouse conditions on Earth to be caused by anthropogenic activities.

    Dr. James Hansen is unhinged. He now follows money and fame. He will soon be shamed then forgotten, just like you Jan P Perlwitz.

  63. Claude Harvey says: “However, the “usefulness ended” theory runs afoul of the fact that he certainly was not politically useful to the Bush administration, yet he survived and thrived.

    Claude, Hansen was useful to NASA. NASA launched a whole raft of earth monitoring projects on the back of global warming in the same way they did on Ozone. Scaring US politicians didn’t require any intelligence, just the gall to make up stuff. Scaring US politicians funded NASA – so Hansen was very very useful to NASA and probably brought in billions to that organisation.

    So, the demise of Hansen, shows us that NASA no longer sees CO2 non-science as a lucrative source of future space project funding. Indeed, given the amount of CO2 produced by NASA with each launch it is VERY surprising they didn’t dump the tard earlier.

    In other words, I do not believe this has anything to do with external politics like Obama … except in so far as NASA has always tried to con US politicians into dumping money their way and Hansen clearly is not considered an asset any longer.

  64. Dr. James Hansen was getting jealous of all those lying climate scientists who wer making money so he changed his story. Hansen is a climate chameleon.

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA – June 16, 2000
    Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
    “A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero.”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA – 2003
    Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
    …..Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short

  65. @Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:19 am

    I addressed two comments to you above which you have not seen fit to respond to.

    I do not have an intricate knowledge of the people involved in “Climate Science”. At the risk of offending your ego, I can’t recall having heard your name before, although it seems from the above at least some are familiar with you and/or your role.

    Anything I know of you is purely from the above exchanges. And it is not creating a good impression. So far as any of the above has much meaning to me, this has been how things have progressed:

    You say no-one is interested in hearing about how GISS is working. I say I am. No response. You then say (to another) that you don’t work at GISS. I ask how that is given your previous comment, and whether I had wasted my time. No response. You now say in effect (to another) that you have an office at GISS – that is, that you work there as part of GISS.

    I have no idea what you actually do. Someone above says your website describes you as a “working climate scientist”. I looked briefly at that site and all I could see was stuff about being censored at WUWT. What do you do exactly? Is your function as some sort of frontman?

    As I have said I can only judge you on what I have seen here. Its not good. Frankly, what I have seen is evasion. Someone who will not give straightforward responses to simple things when these are publicly displayed is not someone who anyone should have confidence in when it comes to matters dealt with privately.

    As a child, like many, for me NASA was iconic. My father had an association with it in the 1960′s. What type of people are there now? Is what I – and anyone – can see with Hansen, and I have seen here with you, representative of the standards of NASA now? If so, how can anyone have any confidence in it or anyone associated with it?

  66. “I am not employed at GISS” – Jan P Perlwitz

    “my entry in the GISS directory” – Jan P Perlwitz

    “Everyone who has an office at GISS” – Jan P Perlwitz

    “Quite a number of scientists working at GISS ” – Jan P Perlwitz

    So which is it, Jan? you are not employed by GISS or you work (ie are employed) at GISS? If you are not employed by/work for GISS, why do they supply you with an office? Sorry jan, but you keep contradicting your “I am not employed at GISS” story at every turn. Bottom line is they provide you with an office, they provide you with money, therefore you are employed by them, so stop pretending otherwise because you are not fooling anyone.

  67. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 5:37 am
    …………………….
    This piece by anti-climate-science activist Horner, who regularly gets his space here on Anthony Watts’s blog, of the industry funded lobby group “Competitive Enterprise Institute”,…..

    Would that include fossil fuel funding for Warmists? LOL.

  68. more soylent green! says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:57 am
    @Jan P Perlwitz
    =========================

    He’s right!

    And while you are here – Hi, and will GISS be reinstating the historical temperature records your former colleague has been corrupting?

    Inquiring minds and all that eh? You have a nice day. See, we’re real friendly over here at WUWT.

  69. Jan P Perlwitz-

    As you are a big Hansen supporter, you must be aware of his dead-certain sea level rise prediction (among other things) from the late 1980′s. These predictions referenced the local community where you work. Why on Earth would you ever consider taking a job at a location (GISS or Columbia or both, take your pick) that will be underwater in a few years? Do you not have faith in Hansen’s predictions? What about his prediction of increased crime rates in your community? What about his suggestion of taping your office window to defend against the predicted increased winds?

    You must also agree with his prediction that all of the oceans will boil off due to CO2-triggered runaway greenhouse warming. When do you expect ocean surface temperatures to reach an average of 100 C?

  70. CEI’s Chris Horner said,

    [all bold emphasis by me – John Whitman]

    . . . he [ Hansen ] presided over an elaborate document removal/destruction operation run by his protégé and presumptive successor, Gavin Schmidt.

    - – - – - – - – -

    It is unlikely Schmidt is a Hansen replacement, given Schmidt’s public exposure as having less than rigorous professional / intellectual integrity appearances; the questionable integrity appearances are very well documented during his RC involvement over a long time period while either possibly ¿on-the-job-at-GISS? or on his own extracurricular time.

    Also, look at his loser looking appearance on Stossel’s show a couple weeks ago. Surely NASA won’t accept that kind of petulant and ill mannered face as their new era GISS leader. I think the NASA boys in Washington have had enough of Hansen and his scientifically quirky isolated leadership/team.

    Had Schmidt been told just before the Stossel’s show that he would not be Hansen’s replacement?

    John

  71. John Whitman says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:45 am

    GISS Personnel Directory

    Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz
    Affiliation: Columbia University

    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    2880 Broadway
    New York, NY 10025 USA

    E-mail: *******@nasa.gov

    Jan is, in GISS’s own terminology, a member of GISS through his position in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. So he is officially on staff of GISS and his salary is apparently funded through Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics.

    Also Note : Perlwitz has a NASA email address.

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

    GISS Personnel Directory. Does Jan even know what the word Personnel means? “per·son·nel (pûrs-nl) n. The body of persons employed by an organization”

    If, as he maintains in the face of all facts, he is not employed by GISS, he really needs to get himself removed from thier “body of persons employed” directory. (and turn in his NASA email address to boot) if he ever expects anyone to take him seriously when he asserts “I am not employed by GISS”.

  72. My question would be, What is the Climate Change “caravan” going to do when the tempature goes down for the next few decades?

    It’s already been one full decade +.

  73. James Hansen is a fanatic. There are adverse consequences when governments appoint fanatics to lead research that affects public policy. It is impossible to ‘win’ the ‘war’ on climate change. One of the consequences of Hansen’s legacy is we stop the ‘war’ on climate change.

    I am curious how far the Obama administration and the EU will move towards a world agreement to ‘fight’, climate change. China, India, and the African countries have asked for 1% of the Western Countries GDP per year and a commitment from the Western Countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% before they will consider signing a legally binding agreement to their limit greenhouse gases.

    Reducing greenhouse gas by 80% and a transfer of GPD of 1% per year to other countries is economic insanity that would transform the Western Countries into third world countries. The US congress and the US public will not support the transformation of the US into a third world country. At what point will there be a discussion of the costs and benefits of the ‘war’ on climate change?

    When participating in a mania, logic and reason are set aside. There is often a component of propaganda, lies, and corruption: The dot.com, Y2K mania, and the mortgage trading mania. Mania’s end when reality becomes apparent, normally when there are adverse consequences.
    The higher and higher unemployment and deficits in the Western Countries is an indication of that we have structural problems in our economies. The next president will be forced to address the US structural problems. The climate fighting policies are a significant reason why the US is not competitive with the Asia. Reducing CO2 emissions does not protect the environment. The EPA’s own internal report supports that assertion.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”

    This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by the EPA’s own scientist. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
    I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.

    The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (William: This is a very good read. See attached for details.)

  74. more soylent green! says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:57 am

    @Jan P Perlwitz

    I find this blog and its readers are fair and are willingly to politely allow you to freely and openly comment. However, the level of skepticism is high and the tolerance for spin and BS are low.

    The moderators here do a good job of keeping the discussion civil and other commenters will call-out posters who are out of line.

    Go on, make an honest post and see.
    ===========================================

    considering he can’t even be honest about his relationship with GISS (“I don’t work for GISS nevermind the fact that they list me in their personnel directory, give me an office and an email address, and provide the funding to my department at Columbia that pays my salary”) I won’t be holding my breathe for him to make one anytime soon.

  75. Jan, I think it’s good that you are here.
    I believe it’s helpful to have a climate scientist here with some insight.
    Do you really think we want CO2 to destroy the world or could it be we’ve seen this type of advocacy before from other do gooders?
    Can you tell us why some climate scientists are willing to lie, cheat, hide, steal and who knows what else for the cause?
    We know Hansen demonstrated his dishonesty right from the start.
    Jones destroyed his data, Mann hid his and who knows what head ethics guy Gleick is willing to do because he already lied and stole then lied some more.
    They do this with no penalty or repercussions.
    Then they demand we trust them because all they want to save the world.
    Every skeptic I’ve read offers up their data, programs, code and decision process.
    They state their case, offer their data as evidence, answer questions and admit their mistakes.
    At WUWT you have to show your work and argue your case.
    You’re a scientist. You believe in CAGW. Offer your evidence without fudging.
    cn


  76. REPLY: OK then, since that is ridiculous you have settled the issue. You are employed at NASA GISS – Anthony

    Let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of who pays him, the important thing is that he works on GISS; Jan can elaborate on that if he wishes. And even more important, Jan is reading and writing on this blog, even though he finds it a bit hostile. How many others in his position have the guts to do this? Jan has been a co-author with Hansen on several papers. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html

    And yes, I am interested in the inner workings of GISS.

  77. I agree there is something else going on. Something has scared Hansen off. He was in a nice safe cosy position with good pay and a megaphone, doing what he does so forthrightly. Now he’s on the run, or at least ducking for cover. That’s what it seems like to me.

    I’m disappointed that NASA didn’t see fit to boot him out publicly. A big FAIL in my book for NASA. It’s a shame, NASA was the best when I was a kid and will never make it back onto that pedestal. They had their chance. They missed it. I can’t think of them now without thinking “cowards” but then, most of the moon landing crew – up there and in Control – are disappointed in what NASA has become, so I’m not alone.

    I’m glad Hansen has gone, but sad that NASA never stood up to him, nor stood up for science. The NASA that was – the NASA that was all heroes and pure science and adventure – that NASA is long gone.

  78. John Endicott says:
    April 8, 2013 at 9:47 am
    more soylent green! says:
    April 8, 2013 at 8:57 am

    @Jan P Perlwitz

    I find this blog and its readers are fair and are willingly to politely allow you to freely and openly comment. However, the level of skepticism is high and the tolerance for spin and BS are low.

    The moderators here do a good job of keeping the discussion civil and other commenters will call-out posters who are out of line.

    Go on, make an honest post and see.
    ===========================================

    considering he can’t even be honest about his relationship with GISS (“I don’t work for GISS nevermind the fact that they list me in their personnel directory, give me an office and an email address, and provide the funding to my department at Columbia that pays my salary”) I won’t be holding my breathe for him to make one anytime soon.

    I agree. The “I double-dog dare you” to make a guest post was implied, but perhaps should have been explicit. From his actions, he’s just another drive-by troll making unfounded accusations about people he disagrees with.

  79. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    > And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. I am not a federal employee.

    My guess is that NASA GISS pays Columbia and Columbia pays on-site GISS personnel. It may be a convenient way to claim that the feds can’t dictate limits on GISS folks at Columbia. Columbia doesn’t seem too place limits either, good deal.

  80. I don’t believe for a minute that Hansen is being discouraged in any way by the alarmist toady/Judge-Jury-and-Executioner administration. I think they regard him as a very useful tool and an effective servant of “the cause.” I think he may be leaving NASA with the expectation that his communications now won’t be subject to FOIA inquiries.

    The Obully administration has made it very clear that there is to be no retreat from the alarmist agenda – inter alia, by nominating an individual (Gina McCarthy) who says that if Congress doesn’t make the necessary laws to implement Agenda 21, she will make them and Congress be damned.

  81. Hey Jan P we have something in common. I, too, do not work for GISS. I’m interested in finding out if they will give me an office and an email address if I continue to not work for them. If you don’t use yours, I would be happy to share it with you. I promise I will not use it and will be happy to share it with an unlimited number of people who don’t work for GISS provided they don’t use it either. I just need to know who to contact to make this arrangement.

  82. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 5:37 am

    This piece by anti-climate-science activist Horner, who regularly gets his space here on Anthony Watts’s blog, of the industry funded lobby group “Competitive Enterprise Institute”, which is known for its disinformation campaigns regarding results from scientific research that are inconvenient for some economic, political, and ideological interests, consists mostly of speculation, with some links to previous opinion pieces and unproven accusations by Horner. It probably is just an advertisement for his book anyway.

    =====

    Chris Horner is an attorney, and the post here is entirely about a legal point about which he is well qualified to speak. Do you care to dispute his legal analysis?

  83. sandw15 says:
    April 8, 2013 at 10:37 am
    Hey Jan P we have something in common. I, too, do not work for GISS. I’m interested in finding out if they will give me an office and an email address if I continue to not work for them. If you don’t use yours, I would be happy to share it with you. I promise I will not use it and will be happy to share it with an unlimited number of people who don’t work for GISS provided they don’t use it either. I just need to know who to contact to make this arrangement.

    I wonder how much it pays to not work for GISS? What are the qualifications and educational requirements? Is there a way to apply online to not for GISS?

  84. @Toto says: April 8, 2013 at 10:00 am

    And yes, I am interested in the inner workings of GISS.
    =====================================================

    Same here. E.G. I’d like to know if the original temp readings that Hansen screwed are still available, and when they will be re-instated?

  85. @Ric Werme says: April 8, 2013 at 10:29 am
    Jan P Perlwitz says:

    > And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. I am not a federal employee.

    My guess is that NASA GISS pays Columbia and Columbia pays on-site GISS personnel. It may be a convenient way to claim that the feds can’t dictate limits on GISS folks at Columbia. Columbia doesn’t seem too place limits either, good deal.
    ====================================================================

    The taxpayer pays. Not NASA. Not Columbia. The taxpayer. This man is a public servant. Repeat. Public SERVANT. He doesn’t work for me as I am a Brit, but he works for, and is answerable to all of you Americans here. End of.

  86. It’s already too late to do anything according to Dr. James Hansen.

    The canary in the coal mine – August 13, 2008
    “We have to be on a new path in 10 years, which means we need to take a new direction in the next one to two years,” NASA’s James Hansen said before a speech at the Science Museum in St. Paul Monday evening. One of the first scientists to voice concern about global warming, Hansen has been outspoken in his assessment, unwilling to be muzzled by politicians or special interests. “I’m getting a lot of flame-mail from the coal………

    http://tinyurl.com/bn36zec

  87. “NCSE is pleased to announce three new additions to its Advisory Council, reflecting the addition of climate education to NCSE’s area of concern: James E. Hansen, Michael MacCracken, and Bill McKibben. ”
    -http://ncse.com/news/2013/04/three-new-climate-advisors-ncse-0014796

  88. I would suggest that Jan P Perlwitz is playing with semantics as a means of misdirection. He wants us off the topic of Hansen.

    So… Back to Hansen! Someone’s had a word in his ear, for sure. I’d love to know what the threat was. How else do you get a fanatic out of a powerful seat like that, without using a crowbar or dynamite? Is someone holding something over him? A threat of the law perhaps? I’d love that! The same would surely apply to all.

    More likely, though, they know he’ll only put his foot in it if he tried the “star witness” bit. He wouldn’t last two seconds on cross examination. Yet that would not lose him his position. No one has ever stopped Hansen from sticking his foot in his mouth – why should anyone think they could stop him now? It would only make him more determined.

    So… what is going on? All we know for sure is that, so far, he’s lying about it (wot a surprise).

  89. Part 1)
    An employee matter reaching the office of the President is never a good thing.
    ___An excellent employee will suddenly be fodder for promotion to new fields/offices to improve them.
    ___A superlative employee might be yanked and given immediate assignments where the President of one of his staff needs qualified assistance. Sometimes the original office still foots the employee’s new salary for a few years.
    ___A bad performing employee brings embarrassment to the entire chain of management from the employee’s superior right up to Cabinet/Officer level.
    ___An employee’s superior who kicks his job up to a superior whether they pass the buck themselves or are bypassed by the employee is immediately viewed as insufficient to the managing task.

    In all likelihood, in spite of claims otherwise, it has always been Hansen’s immediate supervisor who has been approving/disapproving requests.

    That said, I’ve been writing regular letters to Rep. Issa (when they still allowed that) and my Congressmen asking how is it that Hansen’s Officer level employment tolerates willful law breaking, clear activism that corresponds/conflicts his duties, and earning money for activism where he uses his government employment duties/knowledge for personal earnings…

    I’m fairly sure many others have written similar notes.

    Congressmen earn part of their keep by being responsive to the people and serious questions regarding a Federal employee usually result in an official letter from the congressman to the Federal Employee’s superior. Often they’ll frame the questions directly with the laws/regulations relating to the activity in question.
    ___Enough embarrassing questions come filtering in and the employee’s supervisor starts getting cold feet in a hurry.
    ___Enough frivolous obfuscating letters replying to congressmen and their next step is to forward all letters to an investigating authority (Congressional, AG, IG, FBI, etc…)
    ___Enough agencies, prosecutors, whatever start asking questions and the employee becomes hot property. If any of the groups have done enough investigation to start legal proceedings they may negotiate with the employee’s superiors and the employee to try and avoid a costly legal battle and save the government a lot of embarrassment. Unfortunately, all too many Federal employees get to retire this way; keeping their retirement parachute. Usually no word of any bargaining is ever released if the employee stays legal.

    Part 2)
    Federal employees working till age 72 is a rarity.
    ___Either they are truly committed to work and cannot see themselves doing anything else,
    ___Or they are achieving things that benefit them personally (protection from suits, influential statements, squashing inconvenient research, fame glory and all that),
    ___Or they truly believe that everything will fall apart if they retire (all too often this is the most common reason for Federal managers staying past maximum retirement benefit)

    Federal employees get some interesting benefits that are extremely valuable in the long run. Most have some sort of minimizer to prevent someone really making a mint this way; but for most senior officers, many of these minimizers are exempted.

    A) Retirement pay
    __Most Federal retirement pay reaches a maximum payout level based on position and years of service. By the time a Federal employee reaches 42 years of civil service (usually including military service) they have reached the top of the retirement package’s retirement salary. additional years of work only garner that year’s salary and a new year to list their top 3 years of salary (used for retirement pay).
    __Sick leave can be saved forever; but is not paid out to the employee when retiring. Some employees figure out how much sick leave they’ve saved and then skate their last years into retirement.
    __Annual leave hours can also be saved. Technically up to a maximum; but senior executive staff are exempted and can save their leave until retirement. I believe there is a restriction that requires employees above a certain annual leave level to utilize at least one week a year. Federal career employees receive approximately five weeks of annual leave per year. Annual salary employees can not take less than one day of annual leave at a time.
    __Annual leave still on the books is paid out lump sum when the employee retires.

    B) Retirement
    OPM requires some interesting steps. Employees must file paperwork certifying when they will retire up to XX days in advance. Yes, an employee can file paperwork and leave that day.
    __What’s interesting is that the employee must be careful exactly when they retire as their first month’s salary may be a month away if they file after the due date for the retirement month.
    __This little tidbit is the first thing I look at when someone who should know better suddenly retires. This means did they file to retire and retire before the first of the month.

    Nicely forced out or perhaps be prosecuted means the employee gets to choose their exit date within reason. Directly forced out and perhaps prosecuted and the employee leaves the building that day sans keys, IDs, Logons, government property; the term is escorted from the building.

    Hansen retired just before the first of the month. That means he chose when to retire and any other conclusions are assumptions until proved otherwise. (Like FOI-ing his email records and official comments on presentations or hearings.) I’m not defending him, just stating what I see of his retirement notices and actions.

    Hansen will be out from under the Federal Lawsuit protection. Any cases he enters may be on his dime unless he’s glommed a sponsor with deeeeep pockets.

  90. John Endicott wrote on April 8, 2013 at 9:47 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269200

    considering he can’t even be honest about his relationship with GISS (“I don’t work for GISS …”

    I am doubting your reading skills. I did not say I don’t work for GISS. As I have said before there is a collaborative agreement between Columbia University and NASA, based on which Columbia scientists work at GISS. I am one of them. I thought I have made this clear enough.

    However, I am not employed with NASA GISS. I am not a federal employee. Requesting from me anyhow to say I was employed with NASA means asking me to state a falsehood. I don’t know what is behind the wish of some people here, including Anthony Watts, that I was employed with NASA and why they insist on I give false information about my status with NASA.

    And if Anthony Watts, or anyone else who replied to my statements in this thread, repeat the claim in the future I was a NASA employee, although they have been informed that I was not, as clearly stated by me here, I will assume they state the falsehood about my employment status deliberately.

    REPLY:

    I stated:

    “REPLY: You are an employee at GISS, why not tell us the story you know rather than cast aspersions? – Anthony”

    Note that you stated clearly:

    “And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. “

    You say above:

    ‘I am doubting your reading skills. I did not say I don’t work for GISS.”

    It seems you are the one with the comprehension problems, or maybe it’s just problems with conversing truthfully.

    You’ve spent a lot of time bloviating over the issue of your employment at NASA GISS with “not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.”.

    You have an office at NASA GISS, your are listed in the personnel directory of NASA GISS, and you have a NASA email address, you take federal grant money as part of the employment. Check.

    It probably would just be easier and faster to answer the question. Based on your wasting time, I submit that by your actions you are the very model of a modern government employee.

    – Anthony

  91. I’ve seen Perlwitz tell so many fibs I’ve lost count. He is a serial fibber.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies.

  92. more soylent green! says:
    April 8, 2013 at 10:59 am
    I wonder how much it pays to not work for GISS? What are the qualifications and educational requirements? Is there a way to apply online to not for GISS?
    =====================================================
    I’d like to know that too. I’ve been wondering how to put it on my resume. Seems kinda tricky since I always didn’t work for GISS.

  93. Chris

    My read is that retiring from NASA wouldn’t get Hansen out from under the applicable ethics rules; because, former NASA employees are held to the same standard as current employees.

    Look at 14 C.F.R. 1263 which reads:

    Ҥ 1263.100 Purpose and scope.
    (a) This part sets forth procedures to be followed with respect to the production or disclosure of official information or records and/or the testimony of present or former employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to any official information acquired by any employee of NASA as part of the performance of that employee’s official duties or by virtue of that employee’s official status, where a demand for such production, disclosure, or testimony is issued in a federal, state, or other legal proceeding.”

    See http://law.justia.com/cfr/title14/14-5.0.1.1.34.html

    The bottom line is, to testify as an “expert witness” against the government; it looks like Hansen would still have to get the Federal Government’s permission.

    Hee… hee… Hansen’s never been good at ethics law.

    It might be worth checking out the potential of making an FOIA on any recent requests Hansen made to testify… as the results could be a whole lot of “fun”.

    Regards, Kforestcat

  94. Will this climate clown ever be held accountable for repeated violations of the Hatch act? Stay tuned as Hansen loses his political cover.

  95. Jeremy Poynton wrote in April 8, 2013 at 11:09 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269272

    The taxpayer pays. Not NASA. Not Columbia. The taxpayer. This man is a public servant. Repeat. Public SERVANT. He doesn’t work for me as I am a Brit, but he works for, and is answerable to all of you Americans here. End of.

    Keep dreaming. Just because my salary comes from tax money, it doesn’t mean I was a “public servant”, or I didn’t have any rights, or I was mandated to give account to anyone only because he/she asks me to do so and he/she pays taxes, or I was mandated to do what some arbitrary tax payer wants me to do.

    • @Jan P Perlwiz: re: ” Just because my salary comes from tax money, it doesn’t mean I was a “public servant””

      That says nothing. No federal employee considers themselves “public servants”. They consider themselves “federal workers”. Of which they do precious little.

  96. Don’t look now, but NASA has a hot new job opening at GISS for the right person:

    https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/340965000

    Job Title:Chief, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    Department:National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    Agency:Goddard Space Flight Center

    Job Announcement Number: GS13S0003
    SALARY RANGE: $119,554.00 to $158,832.00 / Per Year
    OPEN PERIOD: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 to Wednesday, May 29, 2013
    SERIES & GRADE: ES-1301-00
    POSITION INFORMATION: Full Time – Permanent
    DUTY LOCATIONS: 1 vacancy in the following location: New York, NYView Map
    WHO MAY APPLY: This announcement is open to All Qualified Individuals.

    JOB SUMMARY:

    NASA is looking for exceptional leaders for the 21st century! If you are interested in leading dynamic organizations responsible for fulfilling or supporting exciting scientific and aeronautic missions, there may be a place for you on the team. Seize this opportunity to use your current skills, build new ones, and make significant contributions to our nation’s future. As an added benefit, you would be joining an agency ranked as one of the best places in the Federal government to work.

    Research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) emphasizes a broad study of global change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales and that affect the habitability of our planet. We are looking for a dynamic executive to implement and manage a new way of doing business utilizing innovative, streamlined and efficient management approaches, thereby reducing mission costs and schedule.

    ONE VERY INTERESTING JOB REQUIREMENT…

    –> U.S. citizenship is required <–

    So, does that disqualify Gavin???

    Hmmm….Maybe Dr. Roy Spencer will apply ;^)

  97. Anthony Watts wrote:

    You’ve spent a lot of time bloviating over the issue of your employment at NASA GISS with “not the kind of people with whom I am very interested in conversing about those things.”

    I didn’t make this statement with respect to your falsehoods about my employment status. Now you are just misrepresenting the context of the statement.

    You have an office at NASA GISS, your are listed in the personnel directory of NASA GISS, and you have a NASA email address, you take federal grant money as part of the employment. Check.

    Nothing of this makes me a federal employee. My contract is still with Columbia University, not with any government agency (or “the taxpayers” in general for the matter of fact.)

    It probably would just be easier and faster to answer the question. Based on your wasting time, I submit that by your actions you are the very model of a modern government employee.

    Well, you just will have to suck it up that you don’t have any saying about how I organize my time.

  98. He’s quitting now as a smokescreen so he can kick back and relax after a long lucrative career lying. He’s made his money, and he’s made his point he’s “one of the smartest men in the world” by foisting crime under the blanket dare of Al Gore to anyone in law enforcement, to indict, ANY of them.

    He’s kicking it back at around age 70 to enjoy the proceeds and glamor of being an on-call guru sitting in his office feeling important to himself, waiting to die.

    No? Oh puhLeasE. He’s a socio-criminopath flim-flam man who went into government scamming as a way of life. He found the socio-criminopath to protect him as he made his scams blossom, and it’s time to kick back and let somebody else tutor crime, and criminality.

  99. Lol.- Oh Jan (P Perlwitz) – The Beatles must have had a time machine when they wrote “You’ve been a naughty girl you let your nickers down” You exposed yourself and got caught in a lie . Your obviously to caught up in a Hanson’s web of lies and deceit, what a shame!.
    How can we believe your deliberate attempt to mislead us with the claim you are not employed by NASA. A few flicks of the mouse shows your most definably are. What else are you hiding?
    Redeem yourself and bring forth the good’s.
    The Truth will set you free!

  100. This go-around with Mr. Perlwitz over whether he is is or is not employed at NASA GISS (even though he has an office at GISS, a GISS phone number, an @NASA.gov email address, and depends on public funds) reminds me of the obfuscations and squirming Bill Clinton did over the definition of the word “is”:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

    On the plus side, even though he works there at NASA GISS, we know Mr. Perlwitz can’t possibly become the new GISS director due to the limits on citizenship.

  101. I think Judith Curry might be strong enough to put GISS through a post-Hansen audit of the adequacy of data management and audit of the validity every basis used for the frequent instances of data processing / adjustments.

    If Curry were to be appointed, there would be some GISS personnel changes.

    John

  102. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    I did not say I don’t work for GISS.

    However, I am not employed with NASA GISS
    ===========================

    Ok, clearly English is not your native language, because (despite your attempts to distance yourself from your relationship with GISS), words in the English language have meaning.

    Employed. To engage the services of; put to work

    Do you work for GISS, yes or no? If no, then why do you have an office with them, an email address from them, and are listed in the personnel directory (remember Personnel: The body of persons employed by an organization). Regardless of what semantic hoops you jump through to obfusicate your relationship with GISS the bottom line is you do work for GISS (as you sometimes admit), they employ your services ergo you work for them, you are employed by them.

  103. more soylent green! says:
    April 8, 2013 at 10:59 am
    I wonder how much it pays to not work for GISS? What are the qualifications and educational requirements? Is there a way to apply online to not for GISS?
    ======================================
    Indeed, sounds like a good gig where do I sign up for my office, email, and funds to not be employed by GISS?

  104. philjourdan says:
    April 8, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    @Jan P Perlwiz: re: ” Just because my salary comes from tax money, it doesn’t mean I was a “public servant””

    That says nothing. No federal employee considers themselves “public servants”. They consider themselves “federal workers”. Of which they do precious little.
    ==============================

    Isn’t it funny how people as so quick to line up for the govt money yet want none of the accountability that ideally goes with it.

  105. Friends:

    I am writing to ask a sincere question because I am genuinely curious. I would welcome an answer from anybody except Jan P. because I want to know the truth. And before stating the question I will explain why I am personally so interested.

    I am a British Subject and I was employed for decades as a research scientist at the Coal Research Establishment (CRE) which was part of an industry (i.e. the National Coal Board: NCB) owned by the British Government. When I joined the NCB I started ‘at the bottom’ but my career progressed and I was the Senior Material Scientist of the industry for some years until 1995 when CRE was closed as part of the privatisation of the industry.

    Clearly, I was not a Civil Servant because I was not part of the Civil Service. I was employed by a government-owned industry, I was based at an industrial research facility, and I conducted (often cutting-edge) scientific research at various levels of responsibility.

    Though not a Civil Servant, throughout my entire career I was subject to all the conditions of Civil Service employment because the government was indirectly my employer; i.e. the Government owned the NCB. And some of those conditions (notably pertaining to confidentiality) will continue to apply to me for the rest of my life.

    So what? You may ask. That is the UK but Hansen and Perlw1tz are employed in the US. Well, several posts in this thread quote US Laws which – not being a lawyer – I understand to be saying that Hansen and Perlw1tz were and are subject to the same conditions as I was when I was an indirect government employee.

    However, Jan P. Perlw1tz says

    Nothing of this makes me a federal employee.

    I do not understand his saying that.

    I was indirectly employed by UK Government. Hansen seems to have had similar indirect employment by US Government and Perlw1tz seems to still have it. The quotations of US Laws in this thread support my understanding that their employment status in the US is similar to the employment status I had when I was an indirect UK government employee.

    Clearly, my history – stated here – may be prejudicing my understanding. And my UK background and experience may be preventing me seeing an important difference between UK and US employment as an indirect government employee.

    So, can anybody please explain to me how it is possible that Hansen was not a “Federal employee” and Perlw1itz is not a “federal employee”?

    I am not suggesting that either is or is not a “federal employee”: I am asking how it is possible that Hansen was not and/or the Perlw1tz is not.

    Richard

  106. I hereby nominate DR. ROY SPENCER FOR DIRECTOR OF NASA/GISS!!

    [Please note: NASA/GISS should NOT be confused with Columbia University, even though certain members of the C.U. staff are apparently directly or indirectly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars (including STIMULUS FUNDS!!!), have .gov e-mail addresses, and have access to U.S. government property and information. All of this, of course, begs the question - Does anyone at NASA care about whether export control laws are being followed, given the nebulous relationship of NASA/GISS with Columbia University? Do foreign nationals have access to controlled government information?? Are computer servers adequately safeguarded against unauthorized transfer of government information to foreign nationals???]

  107. Be careful Perlwitz, protesting too much at GISS may make your nightmares come true –
    yours,
    James

  108. Anthony Watts on April 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    This go-around with Mr. Perlwitz over whether he is is or is not employed at NASA GISS (even though he has an office at GISS, a GISS phone number, an @NASA.gov email address, and depends on public funds) reminds me of the obfuscations and squirming of Bill Clinton . . .

    Anthony,

    I am sure GISS can help Perlwitz understand better his relationship with them. He must first admit he needs help or there is little hope for GISS in remedying his confused state of mind.

    John

    - – - – - –

    Anthony Watts on April 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    On the plus side, even though he works there at NASA GISS, we know Mr. Perlwitz can’t possibly become the new GISS director due to the limits on citizenship.

    Anthony,

    What is the source if your info that Perlwitz is not a US citizen?

    Also, there have been unsourced rumors / inferences about the possibility of Schmidt not being a US citizen on this WUWT post and also on the original WUWT post about Hansen retiring. I need sources of the rumors / claims. If he isn’t a citizen then it would potentially eliminate Schmidt as Hansen’s successor.

    John

  109. richardscourtney says:
    April 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    So, can anybody please explain to me how it is possible that Hansen was not a “Federal employee” and Perlw1itz is not a “federal employee”?
    ===========================================

    to be a “federal employee”, one has to be employed directly by the federal government. And that’s the semantic game JPP is hanging his hat onto. However, one can be employed by the government in ways other than directly, as was your own situation over in the UK. The federal government employes people directly (federal workers) and indirectly (contractors, sub-contractors, etc). The latter group is no less employed than the former group, despite JPP’s protestations to the contrary, and are still subject to governmental accountability laws (again despite protestation to the contrary).

  110. Jan P. Perlw1tz says “Nothing of this makes me a federal employee. ”

    No one has claimed you are a federal employee, that is your strawman. The claim was “You are an employee at GISS,” and you are, you don’t have to be a federal worker to be employed by a federal organization. You have an office with GISS, you have an GISS email account, you are listed in the personnel directory (Personnel n: The body of persons employed by an organization) and you admit (when you aren’t denying it) that you work for GISS. You are,by the meaning of the word as used in the English language, employed by GISS to do work for them.

  111. I think you are being a little hard on Perlwitz. What he said is correct he can be a contractor or academic working with GISS with a GISS email, phone number etc. but is not an employee of GISS. NASA has a lot of mixed employee installations and non civil service employees have to be careful to differentiate themselves even if laymen would consider them working for NASA. This is also true at many DOE facities where almost no one is a Government employee yet they are Government Laboratories. I started my work at NASA in the old days when onsite contractors were considered contract civil service. This practice ended in the 90′s after a IG investigation, so now contractor employees are much more separate in terms of how the contracts are constructed and employee supervision is handled. They also get instructions to maintain the distinction.

    Hanson had over 40 years of service so he probably is making as much in take home as when he was working. His retirement is less then his salary but a lot less is deducted from it. Not being in a federal job opens up some opportunities he would not otherwise have and he is famous enough now not to need the GISS title.

  112. Wally626 says:
    April 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    I think you are being a little hard on Perlwitz. What he said is correct he can be a contractor or academic working with GISS with a GISS email, phone number etc. but is not an employee of GISS
    ==========================================

    even if you grant him that splitting of the semantic hair on the word “employee” (though an indirect employee, via contractor status, is still technically an employee), it still does not make his follow on that “I am not employed at GISS” true. He is still employed by GISS (whether it be as a direct federal employee, which no one has claimed, or indirectly via being a contractor) to do work. He has even admitted that he does work for GISS. So to claim that he is not employed by them is a blatant falsehood. He admits he works for GISS ergo he is employed by GISS (that’s what the word *MEANS*) and his claims that he is not employed by GISS is demonstrably not true.

  113. John Endicott on April 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269537

    No one has claimed you are a federal employee, that is your strawman. The claim was “You are an employee at GISS,” and you are, you don’t have to be a federal worker to be employed by a federal organization. You have an office with GISS, you have an GISS email account, you are listed in the personnel directory (Personnel n: The body of persons employed by an organization) and you admit (when you aren’t denying it) that you work for GISS. You are,by the meaning of the word as used in the English language, employed by GISS to do work for them.

    That is just a confused and absurd argumentation. Anyone who is employed by a federal agency is a federal employee. “Employment” is the term for a legal contract between two parties, where both sides, like with any contract, have commitments and specific rights within the contract. I do not have any contract with NASA GISS, I can’t make any legal claims regarding my employment toward NASA. I have a contract with Columbia University, which is a private entity, not a government entity. I am employed at the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics at CU. All of the administrative matters regarding my employment go through this department and Human Resources of Columbia. I work “for GISS”, insofar I collaborate with NASA researchers, who are civil servants, on specific topics of research within the research profile of GISS.

    Trying to display my employment status as a mere semantic question suggests that statements about it weren’t of any legal relevance. Really? If someone claims to be employed by the federal government, although he/she wasn’t, is this legally of no relevance? I would be afraid that it could have negative legal consequences for me, if I made false statements in public about that. And if the view it was just semantics, instead of an issue with legal relevance, is majority view here, then it will be quite strange, considering what efforts are being shown here to construct accusations against scientists to have allegedly violated laws and regulations.

    In the speculative case, GISS was closed in NYC, I still would be an employee of Columbia University. My status would not change as long as I get in federal grant money to support my research. I might have to find another office, though. Or, perhaps, I even could stay in the building where GISS resides now, since it is owned by Columbia anyway. Not that I expect that such a thing happens in the foreseeable future.

  114. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 12:43 pm


    Well, you just will have to suck it up that you don’t have any saying about how I organize my time.

    That’s true, but I want everybody to see that you didn’t deny Anthony’s charge that you waste it, which is “the very model of a modern government employee”.

    Typical obfuscating, quasi-wasteful CU employee, Mr. Perlwitz. And now the rest of the world knows it, too.

  115. @Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    You work at GISS. As part of the team working at GISS. Regardless of your administrative stautus. You say now if GISS closed you would have to find a new office.

    So you work full-time at GISS. As a fully integrated part of GISS.

    I find this incomprehensible. You have gone to absurd lengths to avoid stating a simple fact. A fact that so far as I can see should not be in any way contentious or compromising.

    A simple fact about the place you work.

    Anyone whose instincts compel them to do this in a matter of no consequence is pathological in that behavior.

    You have established beyond doubt that you are evasive and that no one can can have any confidence that you are trustworthy.

    Anything – anything at all – you produce should be viewed with that in mind. Anything you contribute to that has not been carefully independently mediated cannot be relied on. If those you work with are of like mind, any output at all from such an association can have no value.

    You are a disgrace. Not just to science or inquiry, but to human standards.

  116. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Anyone who is employed by a federal agency is a federal employee

    Sorry, but you are speaking total nonsense here. I’m a contractor who works for a federal agency. I am not and never have been a federal employee but I am employed by them, as a contractor, to do certain work.

    All of the administrative matters regarding my employment go through this department and Human Resources of Columbia.</blockquote]

    All that means is that in order to employ your services, GISS makes their contracts with Columbia instead of directly with you. At the end of the day, they are still employing your services, are they not?

  117. Re: NASA GISS employment…

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Ipso something or other duck.

  118. J. T. Jones wrote on April 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269698

    Sorry, but you are speaking total nonsense here. I’m a contractor who works for a federal agency. I am not and never have been a federal employee but I am employed by them, as a contractor, to do certain work.

    With whom do you have your employment contract? With the federal agency? Against whom would you have to make legal claims with respect to your employment contract? Could you make any legal claims against this federal agency? If you can’t in what way are you employed by this federal agency?

    I have been accused of using semantics to obfuscate. I think the ones who really use semantics here are the ones who want to claim that being employed by an organization and being an employee of this organization is supposed to mean something different. What is supposed to be the legal basis for such a claim?

  119. Gah, I messed up the second blackquote on my last post :(

    Ah, well gives me an excuse to point out something else I noticed in Jan’s last post

    Jan P Perlwitz says:

    If someone claims to be employed by the federal government, although he/she wasn’t, is this legally of no relevance?

    If they were a contractor doing the work the government contracted them to do, it would be entirely legal and relevant to refer to them as being employed by the government as they (or the company that hired them) would indeed have a government employment contract. on the other hand, It wouldn’t be legal or relevant to refer to them as a federal employee, as they are not directly employed by the government.

    That’s the distinction you seem not to understand that several people in this thread (including Anthony) have been argueing with you.

    The simple facts of the matter is NASA is footing the bill for work that you do on their behalf. That is what is called employment. Regardless of whether they hired you as a federal employee, contracted with you directly, or as the case may be, contracted your services via Columbia’s human resources department, the end result is the same -you are employed by them to do certain work. That fund money they supplied came with a contract, you know, they don’t just hand out the money for nothing (or so all of us taxpayer hope). It’s why they give you an office to work out of and an email account with which to do business – so that you can do the work that they employ you to do on their behalf. That work is that which you describe as “collaborate with NASA researchers, who are civil servants, on specific topics of research within the research profile of GISS.”

  120. jc wrote in April 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269719

    You work at GISS. As part of the team working at GISS. Regardless of your administrative stautus. You say now if GISS closed you would have to find a new office.

    Yes, but not a new employer. This seems to be way beyond your comprehension.

    You have established beyond doubt that you are evasive and that no one can can have any confidence that you are trustworthy.

    Do you really think I care whether any member of the delusional fake skeptic crowd here doesn’t find me “trustworthy”? That you already don’t by preconception anyway.

    You are a disgrace. Not just to science or inquiry, but to human standards.

    Wow. And all this because I clarified that I am not employed with NASA, contradicting the repeated false assertions by Anthony Watts and others here. Anthony Watts likes to call anonymous participants like you sometimes cowards. Of course, only when they don’t agree with him.

    REPLY: Actually it is a term from slashdot.org and it gets automatically applied to anyone who doesn’t provide any account profile or basic ID. JC doesn’t fit that description because he has a valid email address, I can contact him if there is an issue. “Anonymous coward” is an accurate label for people that wish to be derogatory with being responsible for their words. Yes, you work at NASA GISS, strange that you don’t want to admit that. – Anthony

  121. Your arguments, Mr. Perlwitz, are what we’ve all come to expect from a less-than-honest person, regardless of your employment (although the fact that you work at GISS makes it far less surprising).

    Your attempts at obfuscation aren’t working.

  122. Jan,
    You seem as one who has spent his life in the tower to have no conception how things are arranged in the real world. In the real world office space, titles, server space, janitorial services, secretarial services, etc. are not provided for free. It just doesn’t happen.

  123. “In the speculative case, GISS was closed in NYC, I still would be an employee of Columbia University. My status would not change as long as I get in federal grant money to support my research. I might have to find another office, though. Or, perhaps, I even could stay in the building where GISS resides now, since it is owned by Columbia anyway. ”

    This is an excellent suggestion, Jan. I propose we move GISS out of the expen$ive Columbia University property altogether, and move all operations to North Dakota, where they will be at least two times cheaper for the American taxpayer. Those who actually work for NASA can make the adjustment, I’m sure…

  124. Par for course behaviour for Climate Scientists. Lying, obfuscating, trolling, being obnoxious etc. is normal behaviour for them. Jan’s behaviour is no worse than before. That would be impossible, anyway.

  125. John Endicott:

    Thankyou for the answer to my question which you provide in your post at April 8, 2013 at 2:58 pm where you write

    richardscourtney says:
    April 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    So, can anybody please explain to me how it is possible that Hansen was not a “Federal employee” and Perlw1itz is not a “federal employee”?

    to be a “federal employee”, one has to be employed directly by the federal government. And that’s the semantic game JPP is hanging his hat onto. However, one can be employed by the government in ways other than directly, as was your own situation over in the UK. The federal government employes people directly (federal workers) and indirectly (contractors, sub-contractors, etc). The latter group is no less employed than the former group, despite JPP’s protestations to the contrary, and are still subject to governmental accountability laws (again despite protestation to the contrary).

    Thankyou. That is very clear. And it concurs with the US employment experience of J.T. Jones which he reports at April 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm.

    Obviously, my difficulty in understanding was not caused by a significant difference between UK and US employment laws. It was induced by Perelw1tz having difficulty stating truth. And the difficulties Perlw1tz has in managing to tell the truth is no surprise to anyone – including me – who has interacted with him previously. Indeed, one reason why I thought I may have been being misled by my past experience was my knowing Perlw1tz has problems with agreeing facts.

    Again, thankyou.

    Richard

  126. I agree with commenter “steveta_uk” earlier. Chris Horner’s post needs a rewrite to fix those few sentences that are “badly written. With odd partial. Sentences.”

    On the other hand the news of Hansen’s departure at the hands of Obama might bode well for Keystone XL.

    Also looking forward to Chris Horner posting the contents of those Hansen ethics files online because inquiring minds want to know in black ‘n white exactly how lucrative the GreenEnergy-GlobalWarming racket is.

  127. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    That is just a confused and absurd argumentation.
    =========================================

    I’m sorry that you are so easily confused by the English language and the meaning of words within it. That, however, is entirely your own problem. There’s remedial classes for that, you might look into whether or not Columbia offers any.

    And the only absurdity here is the lengths you go to to distance yourself from your relationship with GISS. I don’t know what you think you gain by doing so, but I can tell you what you lose: All credibility. as another poster mantioned: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies.

    The funny thing is, if you had limited your retort to Antony at “I am not a federal employee”, that would have been a true statement. Though no one was ever claiming you were. Heck, you could even get by, semantically atleast, with insisting that you are “not a GISS employee”. However you went a step too far by insisting on the demonstrably untrue “I am not employed at GISS.” Though I see your difficulty in understanding that stems from your failure already noted to understand the English language and the meaning of words with in it as exhibited when you posted “I think the ones who really use semantics here are the ones who want to claim that being employed by an organization and being an employee of this organization is supposed to mean something different”

    back to remdial English for you:
    EMPLOYEE: a person working for another person or a business firm for pay

    EMPLOYED: To engage the services of; put to work:

    As you can see, those definitions are not exactly the same as you try to pretend. one discusses pay, the other does not. Since Columbia cuts your paycheck (even though, ultimately that money comes from GISS), I can see your semantic arguement that you are just an employee of Columbia. However you are confusing that bit of semantics with the meaning of Employed. GISS engages your services, GISS provides you with work. therefore GISS employes you/your serivces in order to get that work done. It’s what the word “employed” means. It’s why they give you an office, an email account, list you in their “body of persons employed” directory, etc. They even pay for those services. Those who pay the piper call the tune. pretending otherwise does not change the facts of the matter one iota.

  128. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    With whom do you have your employment contract? With the federal agency? Against whom would you have to make legal claims with respect to your employment contract? Could you make any legal claims against this federal agency? If you can’t in what way are you employed by this federal agency?
    ==========================================================

    It’s obvious you have no clue how the real world outside the hollowed halls of acedamia work. Not knowing JT’s exact situation, I’ll try to clue you in on a more general level.

    Contract workers come in two flavors. Those who work for a third party contracting company, and those who are their own contracting company. In answer to your questions
    1) the employment contract would be between the federal agancy and the contracting company (either 3rd party or the individual)
    2) legal claims would be made against the contract. The federal government has departments that handle those kind of claims on their end. How the individual contractor handles it depends on if he works for a third party contracting company (in which case his claims are funneled through their department for handling it) or if he is the contracting company, in which case he’ll have to handle it or hire someone, unusally a lawyer, to handle it for him.
    3) any legal claims he can or can’t make depend on the terms of the contract.
    4) the contractor is employed by the agency via the terms of the contract between them.

  129. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    Yes, but not a new employer. This seems to be way beyond your comprehension.
    ================================================

    You say you’d need to find a new source of funds. New sources of fund don’t come free. They usually have work attached to them. That work would be your new *employment* even if your *employer* technically remains the same (Ie Columbia collecting the money on your behalf and then cutting you a check every pay period).

  130. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    April 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    jc wrote in April 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269719

    You work at GISS. As part of the team working at GISS. Regardless of your administrative stautus. You say now if GISS closed you would have to find a new office.

    Yes, but not a new employer. This seems to be way beyond your comprehension.

    You have established beyond doubt that you are evasive and that no one can can have any confidence that you are trustworthy.

    Do you really think I care whether any member of the delusional fake skeptic crowd here doesn’t find me “trustworthy”? That you already don’t by preconception anyway.

    You are a disgrace. Not just to science or inquiry, but to human standards.

    Wow. And all this because I clarified that I am not employed with NASA, contradicting the repeated false assertions by Anthony Watts and others here. Anthony Watts likes to call anonymous participants like you sometimes cowards. Of course, only when they don’t agree with him.

    REPLY: Actually it is a term from slashdot.org and it gets automatically applied to anyone who doesn’t provide any account profile or basic ID. JC doesn’t fit that description because he has a valid email address, I can contact him if there is an issue. “Anonymous coward” is an accurate label for people that wish to be derogatory with being responsible for their words. Yes, you work at NASA GISS, strange that you don’t want to admit that. – Anthony

    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    It is a convention in blogs such as this that, for whatever reason, many or most participants use appellations that may not be an identifier readily recognized by others in situations other than the particular one they are using it in. Insofar as this usage has no implications outside the particular forum, this is of no consequence or meaning. Any comments I make here can only have the significance that they can communicate in themselves, since they make no claims to any more extensive association.

    You, on the other hand, claim as legitimacy for your participation a perspective derived from a structural association with a particular body or bodies directly involved with the subject being considered, although your precise relationship with these you have been loathe to make clear.

    This nomenclature you use: “Jan P Perlwitz”, means nothing to me. I have no reason to believe it faithfully represents a being with an existence beyond this interaction or associated internet presence, such as a web page which seems to be exclusively dedicated to taking issue, not with topics of scientific substance, but to claimed procedural difficulties with WUWT, and an appearance as an apparent name as being a part of GISS, which is a relationship that you have denied, even as you have said that you have a designated corporeal location within it.

    I can accept that you are effectively an entity for these purposes with an unknown level of autonomy from the the more comprehensive system that has created and maintains you, but no more. The, in human terms, poverty of substance, lack of responsiveness, and narrow and repeatative nature of what you cause to appear here, does not preclude that “you” are an artifact of a computer program. And a rudimentary one.

    Allowing for the possibility that you exist in human form, with an expectation of at least homo sapien characteristics – it is already established that a claim to humanity is tenuous – you have problems.

    In your first paragraph above you use the word “comprehension”. Although I am quite sure that you, in your position, will be completely averse to this, this raises that issue.

    In the space of one line, you almost disturbingly display your incapacity in this. I have not ever raised or shown interest in who your nominal employer is, this being an abstraction relative to the actuality of what you do. You are unable to make that distinction. This despite within the very paragraph you quote – only two lines, very simple – this is crystal clear to any literate 10 yo, and in fact it states in the preceding sentence, very short, to the one you pretend to respond to, that this is the case.

    You seem to have no capacity at all to retain focus on more than one self contained point – and that the last one that swims into your view. Effectively you have no memory at all. And if you cannot retain more than one point – and that only because it is in front of you – it is impossible for you to create any coherent meaning about anything.

    It is difficult to envision such limitations outside an extremely basic – junk really – program.

    Unless these limitations are created by capacity for honesty. A difficult choice. If the entity is home sapien, I am going for dishonesty at this point.

    Although that is a provisional conclusion given your further declaration.

    A “delusional fake skeptic crowd”. Fake skeptics. Well, that fairly incontravertibly means affirmers rather than deniers to use the pseudo-religious terms that must swirl around the ice-cooler, or perhaps over the electrodes.

    So you are of the opinion, or input has decreed, that WUWT is actually an exercise in what – misinformation in pretending to be at adds with this orthodoxy? Does that mean you see yourself as playing a part as a Believer when you are actually not? That this is some sort of curious inversion; played for unfathomable reasons, at least to the uninitiated?

    Or are you – and yours -, really Believers, and the whole existence of WUWT, and no doubt other sites and people, a construction to – perhaps – give the illusion of the possibility of dissent, or a reason to create enemies, or just a mechanism to get funding for Defenders of The Faith – such as you?

    So, the delusional? This could apply to a myriad of things depending on the person, or it could apply generally to something. I will take it that it applies directly to being “fake skeptics”. So all the people of the inclination you designate are deluded about their actual position? That certainly makes sense, since such people who comment here give every appearance that they believe what they say. They certainly seem to think they are real skeptics.

    But how do you know this when it appears so convincing – at least to me – although it would wouldn’t it? Have you given too much away? Are you gloating over this condition? Are you part of a CONSPIRACY? Or, at least, are your programmers?

    Or, to default to a simple explanation, are you both dishonest and in other ways a person of “low character”, which always includes cowardice shown in hiding real intent – and not very bright perhaps?

    You do need a dictionary, or your handlers need to tweak you, it skirts a dangerous zone for you to use the word “clarified” in relation to any text you have caused to appear. Any level of delusion, no matter how confident you are of its strength, can be shattered by something impossible to reconcile.

    You still, although I understand now this is organically or technically beyond your ambit, have not answered the simple question of what it is that you actually do. So I have had to surmise what I can.

    You have a web-site. Nothing immediately apparent on it relates to anything other than WUWT. As an expression of your personal life this is plainly obsessive – all right, deranged. So if you are not deranged, this presumably is some element of your function.

    Reviewing your comments, they have appeared through a working day and number 13 in total. Considering your comments, these have added precisely nothing to anyones understanding of anything – outside of course the possibility of judging you as life form or entity, and if taken seriously, the possibility that a huge number of people are unknowingly fraudulent, and given your knowledge of this, the creation of some diabolical scheme.

    Since you are incapable of actually causing anything of meaning to appear here, your presence must be motivated by an intention to distract from the substance of the post, that being the bizarre and dubious nature of your now ex seer, and the reasons behind his recent elevation or demise, whichever is appropriate.

    So this must be all or part of your function. Are you part of a formal or informal Political Unit in GISS, or is that just part of the job description for all?

    A significant or possibly all of your working time is dedicated to this. That is, to nothing but attempts at manipulation.

    I wonder what the American People will think of this when they are informed. That you and no doubt others are taking money from them – at certainly a much higher rate than applies to their employment – on the basis that you are a scientist working for the common good when in fact you are THIS.

  131. John Endicott on April 9, 2013 at 5:54 am

    &

    Jan P Perlwitz on April 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    John E & Jan,

    John E – We know from GISS’s own website that Jan is considered, in a normal U.S. sense, as working for them. He is indistinguishable in his relationship with them as many others are in GISS’s personnel roster.

    Jan – There is no reason to obscure your relationship / membership within GISS, it is a simple verifiable fact that is established by GISS’s website independent of your comments that make it look otherwise.

    Jan – Without wishing to get into too much personal info about your employment situation, I have a Question = Does GISS currently apply you full time? I will respectfully understand if you decline to answer on privacy grounds.

    John

  132. @ John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:23 am

    “Does GISS currently apply you full time? I will respectfully understand if you decline to answer on privacy grounds.”

    I wont.

    If anything is blindingly clear it is that the level of involvement this “Jan P Perlwitz” has with purely “political” considerations around this issue precludes effective full time employment dedicated to anything directly related to science.

    If this function is not within his terms of employment, or he is not employed part-time, he is abusing his position and must be held to account. If it is within his terms of employment, then NASA itself must be held to account.

  133. Whether one is an employee or contractor, the distinction is legal semantics. Is blogging is authorized during working hours? If so by who? Is blogging being funded using taxpayer money?

    I’m reminded of the Monty Python skit, I’m came here for an argument. No you didn’t. Ahha, you are arguing therefore I paid you. No you didn’t, I could be arguing on my own time.

  134. jc on April 9, 2013 at 7:57 am

    @ John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:23 am

    “Does GISS currently apply you full time? I will respectfully understand if you decline to answer on privacy grounds.”

    I wont.

    - – - – - – - -

    jc,

    I appreciate your comment.

    It is often my impression that Perlwitz comes just to intellectually spit on us and, in doing so might be compensating for self-confidence needs.

    HOWEVER, I appreciate Jan Perlwitz participating here since I like the participation of a wide variety of people here at Anthony’s wonderful intellectual venue.

    So, let the dialog thrive.

    I enjoy your comments and I am jealous because you are quite articulate.

    Take care.

    John

  135. Actually, the whole “who employs Jan Perlwitz” thing is largely an irrelevant distraction to me. I really couldn’t care less who he works for or what he’s working on. He likely draws his salary and benefits from Columbia University. What interests me more is the financial and business relationship between Columbia and NASA/GISS. Clearly, NASA/GISS (through GSFC) funnels money to Columbia for “research projects”. Columbia takes their cut then funds workers like Perlwitz to do whatever it is they do. The researchers in turn provide their “products” to NASA (who I assume owns the IP). What I’d like to know is:

    * What are the current on-going projects for 2013?
    * How much are they being funded for and what is the total budget?
    * How much is Columbia University getting in “overhead”?
    * Who at NASA are the project managers?
    * Is there a budget planning document at NASA/GISS that is available to the public (as it should be)?

    I suspect that continuing this relationship with Columbia is a VERY inefficient use of precious government money. The same work could be done at any number of other university sites across the U.S. (or even the world e.g. India) for a much lower cost (my example of North Dakota is but one of many). And it irks me to no end that places like Columbia apparently seem immune to economic realities, even getting STIMULUS MONEY(!!!) while our economy was struggling back in 2009. These people truly live in a bubble. Fortunately for us paying their bills, the higher education (and related government-funded research) bubble is about to burst. Parents can no longer afford to fund colleges and universities to the tune of $50,000 / year / student, and we as citizens can no longer afford to keep shoveling government money to unaccountable researchers and bureaucrats, some of whom can’t even admit who they work for/with, or even that have a .gov e-mail address!

  136. Jan P Perlwitz on April 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    [ . . . ] Anthony Watts likes to call anonymous participants like you sometimes cowards. Of course, only when they don’t agree with him.

    And

    Anthony said,

    [ . . . ] Anonymous coward” is an accurate label for people that wish to be derogatory with being responsible for their words. [ . . . ]

    And.

    jc on April 9, 2013 at 6:52 am

    It is a convention in blogs such as this that, for whatever reason, many or most participants use appellations that may not be an identifier readily recognized by others in situations other than the particular one they are using it in. Insofar as this usage has no implications outside the particular forum, this is of no consequence or meaning. Any comments I make here can only have the significance that they can communicate in themselves, since they make no claims to any more extensive association.

    [ . . . ]

    - – - – - – - -

    Jan/Anthony/JC,

    I find the topic of anonymous participation is always important to discuss.

    The integrity related implications of anonymous participants in a argumentative process and / or dialog are persistent. The integrity related unknowables associated with anonymity are always in the background when anonymity is present. It is an unavoidable concern with anonymous dialog / processes.

    In the anonymous situation, there is a significant inherent lack of knowledge to verify the intellectual integrity of those being anonymous.

    Therefore, in principle, I discount somewhat the intellectual worth of comments made by anonymous commenters with whom I have dialogs with.

    John

  137. Forget the Perlwitz obfuscator! This thread is about Hansen retiring and any implications regarding his retirement.

    I rather like the idea of Judith Curry applying for and achieving the position Hansen is leaving! She knows her science; Judith is strict enough to aim for accurate data no matter who it pisses off and she is tough enough to deal with the RC hooligans who play games with telling the public the true unvarnished unadjusted truth!

    I like some of the other scientist suggestions for replacing Hansen, but I favor Judith in this case.

  138. @John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:48 am

    I suspect your restrained manner of questioning said Perlwitz is based on a determination to maintain dignity in exchanges, which I whole-heartedly appreciate.

    For me, after I have felt I have given every opportunity for a different interpretation, if someone demonstrates conclusively that they abuse that, I conclude they have excluded themselves from that consideration.

    In terms of actually getting a response of any significance your manner above may well be more effective at times however!

    As to his inclination to intellectually spit as you vividly put it, from what I have seen here he may have the desire but certainly does not have the capacity: there has been nothing intellectual in his comments, rather just – very low grade – sneering.

    His frothing rather than directed spitting is not going to help any problems with self-confidence: if he has a lack of it this is evidence that given his nature and potential he has at least some sense of reality.

    Hopefully in this case, this Perlwitz will feel compelled to actually contribute something meaningful to a dialogue – if perhaps only as part of his terms of employment. It can hardly be good for The Cause to have such a low level of achievement so visible. He might get sacked.

  139. John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:43 am

    In the anonymous situation, there is a significant inherent lack of knowledge to verify the intellectual integrity of those being anonymous.

    Therefore, in principle, I discount somewhat the intellectual worth of comments made by anonymous commenters with whom I have dialogs with.
    =============================================

    Sorry, but I rather disagree. On internet forums, in most cases, you never know who you are talking to even when there is a “real name” attached. For example, just because you use the name “John Whitman” doesn’t automatically mean that IRL you really are someone with the name John Whitman and whether you are or not makes no difference to the content of what you post.

    What is important is the merits of the arguements being put forward. If those arguements are good, the fact that they were posted by a JZ123 or a BabyRocksDaHouse is irrelevant, and if those arguements are bad, the fact that they are posted by a Tony Smith or a Bobby Wilson is equally irrelvant. Having a real name attached to a post no more makes it a good or worthy post than having a Psuedonym attached to it makes it a bad or unworthy post. It’s the content of the post, not the name of the poster, that truely matters.

    all IMHO of course.
    .

  140. @ Frank K. says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:06 am

    It is very true that basic accountability has gone missing, and I would say the actual matching of proposed endeavors to the priorities of reality.

    I think your point about the whole re-evaluation of the value and point of these things is part of a looming reappraisal of the entire justification for the current societal structure. Its hitting the wall across the board.

  141. atheok says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:44 am
    I rather like the idea of Judith Curry applying for and achieving the position Hansen is leaving! She knows her science; Judith is strict enough to aim for accurate data no matter who it pisses off and she is tough enough to deal with the RC hooligans who play games with telling the public the true unvarnished unadjusted truth!
    ===================================

    Indeed, I like the idea too. I’ve been impressed with Judith’s integrity and levelheadedness.

  142. @John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:43 am

    As a basic human instinct that people should know who they are dealing with, and that people must stand behind what they say and do, I think that’s correct. That is essential for accountability in normal dealings with others.

    In this situation however, the nature of the exchanges, and the nature of the internet, create a different situation.

    As I said above, whatever my designation, I can only be judged on the actual content of what I contribute. Or rather, the actual content is what must be judged. I find this a huge positive in such a site.

    “Knowing” someone in itself colors peoples response. It distorts it when consideration is supposed to be given to the substance of what they say. To some degree that will occur on a site like this as people come to know others by whatever appellation: xyz identifies as certainly as Joe Blow.

    I have seen on other threads the appearance of a “name” that people recognize and have a preconception of. I don’t think that is at all useful for open discourse.

    There is the fact that if people attach their real names to something, even in the ether as here, they are likely to be more inclined to say what they would say in person. At least theoretically. Unless a person is trying to manipulate, I can’t see that in practice there will be any difference.

    The person may be freer – that is, more sincere – if they do not have a sense that this has the same “social” character as personal involvement. Because just as social relations demand accountability they also tend to demand restraint. What I have found is that those who are manipulative – that is, hiding, whatever they call themselves – become apparent in a way that is often obscured in “real” interactions.

    Where I do think it may become problematic is where someones claims are based on something other than their comments – but isn’t that just argument from authority? If someone claims to be relaying specific information based on their position, then to be able to confirm that means something. But this is still a matter of trust. If actual evidence is proffered it doesn’t matter what their “name” is. If it is not, it is necessary to go by reputation – established on the site, or through other means – or simply to accept that the authority of a – claimed – position is sufficient.

    I think if a person uses the same appellation within a particular area of discussion or site, which so far as I know can be controlled by the site moderator, then it is clear who is “speaking” and a person cannot assume multiple identities for whatever reason.

    I actually am getting an increasing conviction that this type of interaction over the internet – whether on facebook, twitter or here – is actually forcing people to have to be aware of personal character and be able to judge it in a way that has perhaps never existed before. And to look more appraisingly at what is said. If so, this is enormously beneficial.

    So will you discount my comments here now on the basis that I am jc rather than a name – even though I am perfectly free to make up a “name” and you can never know that?

    Are you really John Whitman? If you are, how does that mean anything to me?

  143. John Endicott says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:55 am

    If Dr. Judith Curry became director, they could move GISS lock, stock, and barrel down to Atlanta, Georgia (Ga. Tech). Think of the cost savings…I believe most of the NASA staff would love the move (and they could get their 32 oz big gulp drinks from the local mini marts without running afoul of the law!).

  144. @ atheok says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:44 am

    You are quite right about the thread. The “Perlwitz obfuscator” has perhaps succeeded in his intent. Maybe that’s all it takes to justify his pay-check. But its difficult to know at this point what else there is to say directly about Hansen or his replacement. Maybe settling for Perlwitz as proxy and Champion is the only option.

  145. Mark Bofill says:
    April 8, 2013 at 7:15 am

    Real motive? More snip fodder for his blog?

    ————-
    Follow up:
    If you look at Jan’s blog,

    http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/

    You’ll see that he’s indeed obtained the material he wanted in order to write another blog post for all / both of his two readers.

    Whatever floats his boat I guess.

  146. In fairness to Jan he has come to the right place(biggest climate discussion site on the internet) to raise his profile

    Job done.

    Lot’s of dodgy climate preachers are positioning themselves to be the next Hansen, the print your own money climate cult position is irresistible.

  147. @ Mark Bofill says:
    April 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    I just looked at his blog as you linked to. I hadn’t registered it when I previously looked but it is entitled “Thought Fragments”!

    Some primitive self awareness then! Maybe visiting WUWT is part of some remedial course he is required to undertake. Although the situation is clearly hopeless.

    He is still going on about about “fake skeptics”. He threatens to expose the gory truth of how his genius is being denied by censorship on this thread – latter.

    They pay for this?

  148. John Endicott on April 9, 2013 at 10:21 am

    Sorry, but I rather disagree. On internet forums, in most cases, you never know who you are talking to even when there is a “real name” attached. For example, just because you use the name “John Whitman” doesn’t automatically mean that IRL you really are someone with the name John Whitman and whether you are or not makes no difference to the content of what you post.

    What is important is the merits of the arguements being put forward. [ . . .
    ]

    - – - – - – - -

    John Endicott,

    I appreciate your comment as it extends the dialog.

    I am willing to stand by all ‘John Whitman’ statements which I can prove are mine. I am willing to engage in a verification process with you to prove I an the John Whitman who made them. I can prove I am really John Whitman since my birth. No problema.

    All non-anonymous will do that on request if they are being honest. That is not a problem.

    Shall we start that process? Let me know if you are willing, I am.

    As to your point that it does not matter who is making an argument, it does matter to me who is making an argument, because an argument based on problem foundations can seem correct but unless the foundations are clearly known then significant info is missing that prevent identifying where possible incorrect areas are. Therefore, you need to know the whole person, that is his world view / philosophy. To know him fully, you need his identity. Give identity and I can show you the persons intellectual integrity.

    John

  149. jc on April 9, 2013 at 11:21 am

    @John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:43 am

    [. . .]

    In this situation however, the nature of the exchanges, and the nature of the internet, create a different situation.

    As I said above, whatever my designation, I can only be judged on the actual content of what I contribute. Or rather, the actual content is what must be judged. I find this a huge positive in such a site.

    “Knowing” someone in itself colors peoples response. It distorts it when consideration is supposed to be given to the substance of what they say. To some degree that will occur on a site like this as people come to know others by whatever appellation: xyz identifies as certainly as Joe Blow.

    [. . .]

    - – - – - – -

    jc,

    Thanks for your comment. It was quite impersonally phrased. : ) That is difficult to achieve.

    The integrated mind of a person makes an argument. If you isolate an argument from the total integration, you lose info on the basis of the argument. You need identity to do the due diligent detective work on fundamental concepts and root premise. It is integrity identification. I think it is necessary in epistemic contexts.

    John

  150. @ John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    “The integrated mind of a person makes an argument.”

    That is reasonable as to the source of an argument. But in communicating any point or position the “integrated mind” is only ever approximated, or is revealed over stages, and then never fully.

    What I think you are actually alluding to is the ability to arrive at a discussion with, what seems to the person, a confident basis for preconceptions. And/or as an exchange progresses, the belief that what is not explicitly said can be inferred from an understanding derived from something other than what has been said in the specific context. In other words, a sort of “short cut”.

    This is normal and unavoidable in day-to-day life. If someone has come to believe that their local mechanic is both knowledgeable and trustworthy, then they will have a great deal more confidence than in a stranger, and will “take on trust” a great deal of what is said. So this is primarily a social relationship, not one that explores issues that exist beyond both participants.

    But every “short cut” carries unstated assumptions. For a social interaction this is actually a major part of the social glue. But it always comes at a cost. There may be an outstanding mechanic around the corner who never gets the opportunity to demonstrate that.

    So the info you fear loosing, is actually a set of assumptions that make you more, or less, comfortable with accepting propositions that have not been fully explained or tested.

    I actually think, that what you are proposing as being essential to the type of discourse here, is part of the poison of contemporary life. There is an increasing inability to distinguish between the personal and objective. To automatically validate a position, or a supposed capacity, purely on who is saying it.

    When you say you need to know identity to do detective work on fundamental concepts and root premise, I disagree. That is precisely what you don’t need. It can only lead to a more limited understanding to the degree it is relied on.

    What I think you are referring to is the ability to more quickly identify “where someones coming from”. This is a convenience that saves time but must always, without exception, lead to a less exact comprehension because the integrated mind of the other will never be fully grasped, and “bits” will always be left implicit and therefore not examined. Which can only lead to error, minor or major.

    It could be said that scientific method itself is based on this recognition and the need to exclude assumptions about the integrity of any participant regardless of previous achievements.

    I would say, you are demonstrating the power of preconception here. You have said you will downgrade your inclination to consider what I say here as legitimate based on this comment not carrying a “name”. Is this reasonable?

    You say above to John Endicott that to know someone fully, you need his identity. This where I find your position confused. You are conflating knowing someone with knowing what they say and why. It is not necessary that you know me fully to judge the significance or otherwise of what I write here. I actually think such a position is an impediment.

    So I must accept that what I have said here will be, in your mind, compromised. But don’t worry, I don’t take it personally!

  151. jc pretty much covered most of what I would have, only in much more elegate prose. which really leaves me with the following point to hit on:

    John Whitman says: “As to your point that it does not matter who is making an argument, it does matter to me who is making an argument,”

    All I can say in response to that is: It *shouldn’t*. And indeed, that’s one of the very huge problems with Climate Science as it stands today. the CAGW inner-circle automatically discounts what someone they “know” is a skeptic has to say, not based on any merit or lack thereof, but solely on the basis that they are “known climate-deniers” and then do their utmost to block papers from those skeptical sources from being published (as illustrated quite disturbingly in the climategate e-mails) again not based on the merits or lack there of those paper, but solely based on who wrote them.

  152. jc on April 9, 2013 at 9:32 pm

    @ John Whitman says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    [. . .]

    I would say, you are demonstrating the power of preconception here. You have said you will downgrade your inclination to consider what I say here as legitimate based on this comment not carrying a “name”. Is this reasonable?

    [. . .]

    - – - – - – - -

    jc,

    First, my use of ‘impersonal’ as to your previous comment’s mode of expression was meant to be very complementary to you. : ) I meant by it your admirable absence of personal focus on an antagonist.

    To respond to your question ‘Is this reasonable?’ regarding my intellectually discounting the anonymous commenters / posters, the key is indeed what is to be expected when using reason in arguing? When integration of world view / philosophy is withheld from an basis of an isolated / segregated argument it is discounted against a case where nothing is withheld from the connections to the total integration. The integrated view is a nothing less than a person’s identity. That is reason applied.

    The intellectual price the anonymous inherently pay for non- identity is significant in my view.

    Jc, I do not dislike you for being anonymous.

    John

  153. John Whitman says:
    April 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

    Sorry for being somewhat tardy in responding, I was a bit waylaid by other threads when I came earlier.

    I probably wouldn’t bother with this, there seeming to be little point, except that you are obviously laboring under the impression that I must be personally affronted in some way. I’m not.

    Firstly I am surprised by your use of the word “antagonist”. There is no antagonism on my part. I don’t even see you as a protagonist.

    An issue arose. If I didn’t see it as having some legitimacy as a point of discussion I would have said so or most probably ignored it.

    You obviously see it as in itself something that has a moral or personal nature. I don’t. Even if I did, I would still approach it as something to be looked at objectively and justified or not in those terms. It is not personal for me. Such things have an existence independently of me.

    It is only as I started to write this that I realized that an element of your thinking must still be attached to the comments of the entity “Jan P Perlwitz” which raised this, prompting my response. I had actually forgotten about him. He has nothing to do with this issue.

    My response to him was based entirely on what he showed himself to be. His use of this issue was obviously part of that. But unlike any of the particulars of his evasions and general low behavior, this issue exists independently of him. If it didn’t I would have dealt with it in terms particular to him and then forgotten about it.

    There is no connection at all between any contempt I might have shown to said being, which is in itself not personal in a broad sense, it is a specific response to elements of a persons behavior which is based on general standards – I don’t now and didn’t then have any interest in or feelings about the “personal” Perlwitz at all – and my view of this issue and anyone participating in a discussion of it.

    That said, I am disappointed by your response here. You essentially re-iterate your previous position. You do not address the substance of my general comments or John Endicott’s specific example. You raised this issue for discussion, seeking to extend my original comment, and invited others to participate. You are not doing your bit.

    I do not see your above re-iteration as evasion. You have not attempted to introduce red-herrings, obscure previous statements, or redefine words or phrases. Rather I would describe it as something like studied neglect.

    Your, correct, identification of what you refer to as the integrated mind as being a significant factor in what people say or claim is, as I see it, being displayed here. I conclude that you have held these views for a considerable time, and that they have a moral component to them which reinforces them beyond an intellectual basis and makes them significant to you as being representative of character which exists independently of any practical reality that can be observed. And that you have come to this by conflating probity and confidence in social relationships with integrity in observation and argument.

    These are not the same, and to rely on personal association which is in fact what you advocate – it is not possible to know the “integrated mind” of anyone without close association which implies approval, and this will always have a social element – will invariably result in misjudgements, lack of clarity, unreasonable favoritism and outright corruption.

    You may like to consider the fact that much of human knowledge when arrived at by co-operation has occurred when the participants were far apart, rarely or never met each other, and had no real way of knowing the other as they “really were”. A name was just a name. No verification of other character elements possible. Such people and processes created Civilization. I’ll take that over the contemporary fetish for the personal.

    As to the “anonymous” being beggared in intellectual access or comprehension, I can’t say I’ve noticed it. From what I’ve seen in life, and which it is childishly easy to demonstrate intellectually, the people who are intellectually impoverished are those uninterested or made incapable by refusal to allow questioning of their preconceptions, let alone abandon them even when they are palpable inadequate.

    This is, on your stated position, a waste of time, or would be if in fact I viewed this as “personal” or you as a protagonist. However, apart from the fact someone else may find it of interest the main point for me is that it obliges me to firstly evaluate and then express an opinion on a position. In this case, on this issue, I had not done that to any extent previously, at least deliberately. That is why not just on this issue, but any, I take an interest.

    You have not offered a clear statement on questions asked of you. Personally, for someone to use as a reason for not dealing with something, that someone is anonymous, I take as a very clear statement as to the constitution of their “integrated mind”. So regardless of appellation judgements can and will be made.

    To be clear, when I say personally I do mean in judgement not feelings.

  154. jc on April 11, 2013 at 7:03 am

    John Whitman April 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

    And . . .

    John Endicott on April 10, 2013 at 9:20 am

    - – - – - – - – -

    jc & John Endicott

    Appreciate your comments.

    jc, I merely used the term antagonist as in the classical literature / formal debate sense where one side is an antagonist and the other side is a protagonist. There is no perforative inference toward you or the subject matter on my part by using antagonist (protagonist). We disagree on anonymity, so one of us is a protagonist and the other is an antagonist on the issue . . . take your pick which one you want as yours. : )

    Again, let me reiterate that I consider anonymous argument without an integrated mind identified as an incomplete epistemic process. It has lessor intellectual value to me than where the integrated mind is fully disclosed for complete identification as is the case for the non-anonymous situation. You suggest both situations are epistemologically equal, I say they are not.

    jc, as to your suggestion that my position has some elements of a moral basis, none of my comments have stated or inferred a moral basis for my intellectual discounting of the anonymous. Morality, is not a part of my argument with you.

    I suppose it is possible that there could be a moral element, but I have not looked at it in my argument with you. Are you introducing the subject of morality as important to your position? If so then why?

    I think a full integrated mind context is essential in the pursuit of knowledge, since human knowledge is hierarchical. We need all the building blocks of ones knowledge to inform on an argument.

    jc, as to your discussion of ‘names’, identity is not in any essential sense a ‘name’. A name is an arbitrary label, as such it has little value to contribute to one’s intellectual identity.

    John

  155. @ John Whitman says:
    April 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    My mistake apparently in translating your use of the word “antagonist” as being of a personal nature.

    Given that in the message I responded to, you assured me that you didn’t dislike me (personally) for being anonymous, a response in you that had never occurred to me as being possible, and that in the previous message you sent you thought it necessary to congratulate me on being “impersonal” – which I found perplexing and revealing of your mind, not mine – I could hardly have thought otherwise.

    Any suggestion by me that you have a moral component – or social, which you do not mention – is an attempt to find a rationale for your position in things you have not stated. Because you state very little.

    Your attempt to pretend that I am introducing morality as some sort of basis for any points I have made about my position I will describe as sophistry, although it is more accurately described in less generous terms.

    As I said, seeking reasons outside the ones offered by you for your attitude – which is what it is – became obligatory.

    Because your position is nonsensical. Devoid of sense.

    You demonstrate that yourself in your last paragraph when you explicitly state that a name has no meaning.

    This is the entire point of this discussion.

    This is what both John Endicott and I maintained at the outset.

    And you obviously do this as a feeble justification for your claims to the primacy of your attitude towards the integrity of the “integrated mind” in this issue, which is completely irrelevant.

    You thus escalate your position, claims and attitude from the nonsensical to the preposterous.

    I would suggest that in future, before you invite discussion on any topic, you examine your readiness to actually examine the issues, rather than see it as an opportunity to just assert your view. You will save other peoples time, and possibly some discomfort for yourself.

  156. Message for Anthony

    I have remembered seeing in a reply you appended to a comment by the Perlwitz entity at April 8th 7.25pm above, where he thought he had delivered a mortal blow to me, that you, rising to the defense of fact and incidentally me, referred to me as JC rather than jc.

    I don’t suppose it matters, but a few weeks ago I first noticed a JC appear (he/she may well have been around longer) which gave me a start: it was as if a doppleganger had appeared.

    I guess nothing can be done to avoid potential confusion, but just so you know, there are both the humble and the bold on the site. In the end its no different from having a John Brown and a John Browne, so if it has any importance at all, I guess people figure it out.

    With your new system I assume this will never be read anyway!

    REPLY: Oh I read it, and you are wrong when you say that “I guess nothing can be done to avoid potential confusion”. Sure there is, use your real name like many people here do. After all, if you think your opinion is important, surely you are willing to stand behind it by putting your name to it? Otherwise it’s just another anonymous opinion and not worth as much. – Anthony

  157. @ Anthony Watts

    You sound aggrieved. If you are, is it entirely to do with this question of “anonymity”? If there is anything else you will presumably explain what it is.

    As to the question of a “name” or otherwise, if you have a strong opinion on that, with identifiable reasons that you think constitute a coherent position, why didn’t you contribute to the above?

    Or why don’t you now?

    As a result of the above I have actually come to the diametrically opposed position. That having “names” in anything that claims to be a dispassionate investigation can never be beneficial and will almost invariably be detrimental.

    Such as in peer review.

    I even considered submitting a comment suggesting that people could be given a randomly allocated identifier for each thread. As a matter of certainty, by minimizing the personal, the quality of exchanges will be improved. i think the above exchange with john Whitman illustrates that. My very strong impression with him is that he cannot bring himself to actually acknowledge what he himself says for reasons of “personal dignity”. Because of a name.

    The reason I did not submit this is because I realized that for many regulars it is BECAUSE the exchanges are personal, having developed this character of familiarity over time, that they ARE regulars. That is, WUWT serves as “social media” as well as a focal point for discussion.

    As I made clear above – and here – I can see absolutely no reason to assume a “name”. The tone adopted by you of something being intrinsicly underhand in not having this “name” I regard as being in itself fundamentally underhand. If you can advance actual reasons – rather than this “peer pressure” with no observable rationale, then do so.

    Otherwise accept with good grace that it is your personal preference for whatever reason and don’t judge others for not sharing it.

    If that is so intolerable, and you cannot come up with any actual reasons for your preference then it is your site and you can demand “names” which, whether bogus or real, will presumably satisfy you, and you can expel those unwilling to comply.

    As I said in the above exchanges I was ready to consider the issue on its merits. I have. I do not acceed to mindless bullying. If you want to ban further comments from me, do so. In the absence of any tangible justification, you will define yourself in the process.

    REPLY: Golly, what an overreaction. Look, its really simple. If you want to delineate yourself from another commenter, change your handle, If you want to elevate yourself, use your name. If you want to whine about your situation, do it into a paper bag because I’m simply not interested. – Anthony

  158. @ Anthony

    Suggestion: Have a post where you explain the basis for the “elevated” nature of the Named.

Comments are closed.