I’ve been wrestling with this topic for hours now as to how to best present it in this forum. I finally decided to simply just write it as I see it.
It has been an ugly day for law and common sense in the world. Vandalism in the name of ecological causes is now “ok” thanks in part to Dr. James Hansen, of NASA GISS coming to the defense of eco-vandals. See the second story below. Now, encouraged by this “victory” that gives a sanction to eco-vandalism in the UK, how many more shall we see? And if one of these people is injured and kills themselves or others in the process of the next stunt? What then? Who is responsible?
Certainly I want a cleaner world, and better energy resources with focus on the future. But, sanctioning vandalism for these causes is not the way to get there. What do I want from NASA as a taxpayer? Science, solutions, and inspiring ideas turned into reality. I don’t want political activism in the name of science.
After thinking awhile about this, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
1- A NASA scientist siding with vandalism as a “lawful excuse” is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science.
2- Dr. Hansen cannot separate himself from the agency as private citizen in this case, because he was brought in as an “expert witness”. Even if he paid his own way and took personal time, his presence was based on taxpayer funded research.
3- It appears Dr. Hansen has violated the code of ethics posted on the NASA Office of General Council webpage.
From the Goddard Institute for Space Studies web page: GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center‘s Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC’s Sciences and Exploration Directorate. Thus Hansen falls under these ethics rules.
Specifically, Dr. Hansen’s defense of vandalism in the name of a cause he believes in fails under the NASA Misuse of position rule. If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules.
4- As keeper of data, specifically the GISTEMP dataset, he has now brought the impartiality of that data into question due to his activism in areas unrelated to scientific research.
Certainly Dr. Hansen has a body of work that is impressive, there is no disputing that. But it is time for Dr. Jim Hansen to go. Thanks to him, GISS as a dataset is no longer impartial. We have potential bias from the gatekeeper of the data that can’t be separated from the data. If he can come to the defense of lawbreakers in the name of his global warming cause, then it is an even easier jump to allow that same bias to creep into scientific data he is responsible for and his conclusions drawn from that data.
If you feel the same way, your recourse is to write to
Michael D. Griffin
Administrator
c/o NASA Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)
Or use the online submission form
————————————
From the Greenpeace website:
Breaking news: Kingsnorth Six found not guilty!
Five of the ‘Kingsnorth Six’ at the top of the 200m chimney
From The Independent, UK
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
also
Nasa scientist appears in court to fan the flames of coal power station row
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Thursday, 4 September 2008
The Nasa scientist who first drew attention to global warming 20 years ago appeared in a British court yesterday as a key witness in support of climate change activists charged with damaging a power station.
Professor James Hansen gave evidence at Maidstone Crown Court in the case of six Greenpeace members who scaled a 630ft chimney at the Kingsnorth plant in Hoo, Kent, last October in protest against plans to build new coal-fired units there.
The activists planned to paint the slogan “Gordon Bin It” on the chimney, but only got as far as the Prime Minister’s christian name before they obeyed a High Court injunction ordering them down. They were charged with causing £35,000 of damage – the sum it cost the plant’s owner, E.ON, to scrub off the word “Gordon”.
Greenpeace argues that under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, its activists had a “lawful excuse” to cause the damage because they were seeking to prevent even greater damage being caused to property – such as flooding from rising sea levels and damage to species caused by climate change.
Yesterday, Prof Hansen, who has spoken out against the Bush administration’s stance on global warming, said Britain had a responsibility to take a lead on limiting climate change because it was responsible – owing to its long industrial past – for much of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Phasing out coal-burning power stations was crucial in tackling global warming, he told the court.
“Somebody needs to stand up and take a leadership role,” Prof Hansen said. “It is an opportunity for the Prime Minister. If we are to avoid disintegration of the ice sheets, minimise species extiction and halt or reverse… climate change there is just time to accomplish it, but it requires an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture or sequester CO2.”
Prof Hansen joined the Kingsnorth debate in December when he wrote to Gordon Brown and urged him to drop plans for coal-fired plants that do not capture CO2 emissions. E.ON wants to build two new coal-fired units at the ageing plant. The Government is considering whether to approve the planning application.
Before travelling to Kent, Prof Hansen met the David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who is thought to be unhappy about the plan for Kingsnorth, which is being promoted by John Hutton, the Business Secretary. Mr Brown will have the final say later this year.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Frank, Anthony is a private citizen. Hansen is a government employee. End of story.
Mike Bryant: “What if their antics kill an innocent? Will Hansen be partially responsible?”
Different situation entirely. I didn’t make any mention of that, only that if the cause harm to themselves, they deserve it.
This is a dangerous precedent. If vandalism is OK, then what else can the same defence be used for? For harming people who have high carbon footprints, for example? Could I burn-down the headquarters of Boeing because planes emit CO2? How about slaughtering cows? When you think of the number of issues that are blamed on global warming, this is arguably a defence for nearly any crime imaginable.
Some have said last winter was the worst but just wait.
I think all of the coal fired power plants in the UK voluntarily shut down for safety/eco inspections and not throw a switch until Hansen and his smart crowd certifies each of them. Let the good magistrate warm his butt with burning law books. I think there would be torches and pitchforks at the gates.
‘1- A NASA scientist siding with vandalism as a “lawful excuse” is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science.’
The point of law was that the protesters used the defence that they were ‘preventing a greater harm’. Is it not a question of science whether AGW will be a greater harm?
‘If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules.’
Does anyone have any evidence that Hansen received compensation for appearing as an expert witness? Or is it guilty until proven innocent?
On the same day in the UK we hear that a mother was fined £700 for putting her dustbin bags out a day early. Mad!
REPLY: It was £70 for using the wrong dustbin not 700, here is the story:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/58917/-70-fines-for-using-the-wrong-dustbin
Yes mad indeed.
The shortfall in UK energy has been pointed out to the government. They, the government, are faithfully following EU guidelines to close down existing coal and obsolescent nuclear power stations and are dependant on French (nuclear) electricity and Russian gas and Russian coal for the remaining power stations. The outcome is predictable. People are going to die, in the name of “saving the planet”!
Hansen, greenpeace et al will have blood on their hands.
Sorry Anthony, I’m not with you on this one. Appearing as an expert witness for the defence in a vandalism case is not the same as ‘defending vandalism’, fine distinction though it may be. Nowhere in the reports is it indicated that Hansen approved of the activists’ actions.
REPLY: I understand where you are coming from but please consider this. When asked to travel to act as an expert witness to the defense, a personal choice was made. I would think that if Dr. Hansen did not agree with the actions, or thought that the actions were rephrehensible, would he have agreed to go?
When called upon without subpoena as force of law, any citizen has a choice, particularly when the court has no jurisdiction over you, such as a UK court on an American citizen. I believe Dr. Hansen made the choice to go because he knew it would become a show trial, and it has. Law be damned, the message was more important is how I view it.
I’ve testified in court under oath on meteorological matters pertinent to civil cases. I’ve also been asked to be a witness for cases that I have turned down, because when I saw what situation the defense would be putting me in, I saw it as a personal integrity issue and declined. I believe Dr. Hansen was in the same situation and had the same choice available to him.
I wouldn’t call testifying at a criminal trial “simply talking about science”.
Slightly OT. Surely, since this acquittal sets such a serious precedent, there will be an appeal? Does anyone know what is happening?
Since when has it become legal to become a vigilante? Surely there must be an appeal on this case. Maybe the next prosecutor could call up lord Monckton as a witness.
Anthony, you write:
“If he can come to the defense of lawbreakers in the name of his global warming cause, then it is an even easier jump to allow that same bias to creep into scientific data he is responsible for and his conclusions drawn from that data.”
This is a very very sharp and important point.
Hansen is now testifying his low moral to the whole world, and NO ONE can any longer be considdered “Conspirasy-freak” for believing that Hansen has modified GISS data in unscientific ways to promote his ideas that where once pure and clean.
All important giss modifications support his case, and this is statistically impossible.
I couldn’t imagine that the Britain could get any worse than it had already become in the short six months since I left the place for good. But it really does seem like the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum.
My advice is to now ignore the country (where I was raised) until intelligent life is able to repopulate the place.
Of topic:
What a dirty dirty war where every trick is used:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4690900.ece
Richard: I’m not sure the acquittal can be appealed. But the ways of the law are strange.
Spam et al. Their defense used the rule that one may break the law to prevent a “greater harm.” I have never heard of it being allowed except when the “greater harm” was an immediate and indisputable danger.
So the jury apparently decided that defacing the power plant had to be done that night or global warming could not be forestalled.
Talk about a tipping point! They calculated it to the hour and to one smokestack.
As Spam noted, the “greater harm” acquittal is a step onto the slippery slope. Why not intimidate workers at that plant? Or bomb company offices. Why not kill a few or a great number to illustrate how serious global warning is? Why not shoot government ministers who promote the wrong policies? What cannot be justified to save Earth?
Hansen’s involvement here was trivial. Like Al Gore he has transcended facts. So regardless of developments – whether the Earth warms or cools and what man’s role proves to be – they will have apostles forever.
Anthony,
cool down.
Look, when Barack Obama wins, he will install Al Gore to be head of the department of energy and head of the department of enviromental problems, or what the precise name is or will be. Call it ‘save- the-planet department’.
Al Gore in turn will need undersecretaries and a first round choice to pick is Dr. Hansen, who has a reputation of having managed GISS (for the record: I really mean manage and not massage!). Then, Dr. Hansen will manage all science involved in climate change.
Dr. Hansen, of course, will also manage all sceptics to get convinced of his views.
You should strart calling him Uncle Hansen.
I have given expert testimony in British courts many times – at all levels – and am thus more than usually familiar with the requirements for expert witnesses. Strictly – honoured more in the breach than the principle – the expert does not represent either side, but is an officer of the court, there to give guidance to the court.
As such, the expert is duty and legally bound to give impartial evidence. Evidence of partiality is one of the grounds for disqualifying an expert. I once spent three days in a witness box, two days of them under hostile cross-examination where the prosecution strategy was to argue that, having publicly taken sides on the argument, I was an “activist” or “campaigner” and thus disqualified as an expert.
On that basis, I doubt very much whether Hansen – had he been challenged – could have stood up as an expert and most certainly should have been disqualified.
Incidentally, Hansen is not the only one to misuse his office. Zac Goldsmith, the “environmental policy advisor” to the Conservative opposition leader, David Cameron, also gave evidence to the court in favour of the activists. He has since made statements in his role as a policy advisor.
By inference – as he as not been disowned by the Party – the Conservative Party also supports the commission of criminal damage in pursuit of environmental campaigning. And this is a Party which has ambitions to become the next government.
See here.
Herehere!! Thank you for the link. I had been looking for a petition or some such thing to this effect for almost 6 months now. Thank you.
I believe that Hansen lost his scientific objectivity some time ago and has been spouting his quazi GW “fear monger” crap on my dime for way too long. I cannot respect a man who uses scare tactic and out right bully tactics to further his agenda. Is it any suprise that he advocates such behavior as acceptable in others? He only opens his mouth to change feet these days and that is not someone I would like to see at NASA.
NASA should be above the argument, and continuing to look at the data being gathered. As an organization they should not be playing sides in this debate especially since they provide a signifigant role in data collection. If the objectivity is skewed twards a specific agenda, then the data collection can and WILL be skewed as well. Don’t sit there and tell me the numbers cannot be skewed, all you have to do is wonder where the heck the hockey stick theory went and how much trouble it took for objective scientists to get the message out that it was wrong.
Im getting tired of scare tactics by the climate change folks. Why does climate change mean disaster? The Earth warms, the earth cools. The sun has spectacular displays of power, and has the audacity to go silent. The temp drops in spite of predictions and where one ice pack diminishes, another grows. I have not seen or read anything that would prove to me that its man that causes any of it. I suspect that this winter in the NW United states will be a very bad one. Its one of the coldest summers I have seen in about 30 years and the cold for winter is already setting in. GW’ers responce, dont worry it will warm up again.. WELL DUH… doesnt that mean its a natural fluxuation? But no.. according to the latest scare, complete with cute polar bear picture, the Artic is now an island for the first time in human history. I kid you not that is the byline.
I know I am preaching to the choir here folks. But I have taken to being very vocal. I write news organizations when they run stupid stories, I write to my congressmen, and I voice my opinion just as loud as a GW’er. Good news is, maybe its starting to work as I see more in kind responces as mine showing up. I just figure this. If it works for them, it will work for me too.
That woman was found not guilty of puttings the wrong things in her bin, by the way. She never paid £700 or £70.
Hansen revealed his lunacy earlier this year in calling for the heads of companies to be prosecuted for “crimes against humanity,” if they muddied the waters by presenting information skeptical of global warming to the public, during his 20th anniversary (of his 1988 1st testimony to the U.S. Congress on global warming dangers) testimony to Congress. At least we know he no longer believes in real science which requires skepticism to progress.
The guy is a kook (and this is coming from someone trained in the atmospheric sciences, which Hansen was not).
If British (common) law is similar to the U.S. Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (i.e., being tried twice for the same crime if already acquitted), there will be no appeal available. The jury gets the last word, period. It’s the same reason O.J. Simpson’s not guilty verdict could not be appealed.
Maybe a few more cold, wet winters will put some sense into the British citizenry. And where were the prosecution’s expert witnesses?
What I wrote to NASA:
“Nasa scientist appears in court to fan the flames of coal power station row.” From the UK Independent.
Jim Hansen stated in a court of law “Somebody needs to stand up and take a leadership role,” Prof Hansen said. “It is an opportunity for the Prime Minister. If we are to avoid disintegration of the ice sheets, minimise species extiction and halt or reverse… climate change there is just time to accomplish it, but it requires an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture or sequester CO2.”
Are these the statements of a scientist or an advocate/zealot? Is GISS data a tool of discovery or the tool of a zealot? What is the budget of GISS and how can it be justified when its administrator is a man of faith in the cause of AWG? Fire him and let him get on to making the big bucks lobbying legislatures.
As a UK citizen I have to tell you that my view is that Hansen was just putting the ball in to an empty net. An “eminent” NASA scientist addressing 12 wise men and women who are constantly receiving the “climate change” message from the printed press, government and the BBC!
It is no surprise at all.
The surprise for those members of the jury will come in 7- 10 years time when, due to the closure of many existing coal power staions (due to EU pollution regs) and the shutdown of worn out Nuclear plants, the lights start to go off in periods of high energy requirements. A string of mild winters has just increased the complacency.
All in a country that has well over a 100 years of coal reserves and you might think would be interested in developing clean(er) coal generation.
Hansen no doubt sees this as an important victory in the “fight” against CO2, but be aware that there is already some speculation that the govt may not now approve the new coal plant. If that is the case no doubt he will feel his trip to the UK well worthwhile.
[…] Watts-Up-With-That […]
there is an other Hansen involved at NASA
scary stuff
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/peakoil.html
I think he looks like Homer Simpson in the photo.