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.
So an ‘activist’ from a ‘animal’ welfare/rights group, see’s that a dog has been run over in the street. He decides the dog needs urgent veterinary care, So he steals a nearby car, vandalizing it by breaking the window and hot wiring it…. At his trial he is found innocent of stealing/damaging the car, probably as he had an expert (from a foreign country no less) saying the dog might have otherwise died. But the point of the trial (surely) is that the owner of the car wants compensating for his loss. Not be told that the court had effectively given cart-blanch for his (or anyone elses) car to be stolen for reasons of some ‘greater good’ !!! the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum
The only good thing about Hansen is that his “adjustments” were so glaring that they awoke me to the fact science was being distorted. Up until thirteen months ago I naively accepted the NOAA and NASA data as Gospel, and didn’t even imagine any distortion could be involved. It was McIntyre’s work at Climate Audit forcing Hansen to “readjust” his “adjustments,” that shook me up. (Then, of course, Hansen “readjusted” the “adjusted adjustments.”)
I wrote my congressman about Hansen using his position in a way that was illegal last August 2, stating he should be fired. I received a form letter in response. (See copy below.) It didn’t leave me feeling heard, however I feel we should keep the pressure up, and write our congressmen again and again and again.
COPY OF RESPONSE FROM CONGRESSMAN HODES:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the current global climate change discussion. I truly appreciate hearing from you, and I am working hard to stand up for New Hampshire’s interests in Congress.
I understand your concerns about the scientific debate on climate change. Recent peer-reviewed scientific reports, including the reports issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have indicated that global warming is a real threat to our planet. However, independent from the evidence for global climate change, working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and developing alternatives to fossil fuels will improve both the environment as well as our domestic economy. Instead of sending more than $1 billion overseas every day for oil, it is critical to our economy to develop our own renewable energy sources.
I share you concern for the ability of New Hampshire’s families to heat their homes this winter. On July 10, 2008, I introduced H.R. 6473, a bill that provides a bipartisan solution to bring down the price of heating oil. This bill would release heating oil from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve onto the market by auction if the price stays above $4 a gallon from November through March. The money raised would go to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization Assistance, two programs that assist thousands of New Hampshire families dealing with energy costs each year. H.R. 6473 has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Although I am not a member of this committee, please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind if this comes to the floor for a vote.
I encourage you to continue to contact me about the issues that are important to you. Please feel free to visit my website at http://www.hodes.house.gov where you can share your ideas with me, learn about the services I can provide to you, and sign up for my periodic e-mail updates on what I am doing to help New Hampshire.
Sincerely,
Paul Hodes
Member of Congress
So anything that emits CO2, i.e. threatens global warming, is open game to vandalism and destruction?
That’s pretty much what this kook UK judge is saying.
Still, it might be a good idea to leave Hansen at his position, as there is clearly no better display of the the AGW lunacy. Let the world see it for what it is.
I would like to sound a note of caution here – like Climate Audit I would like to think that this site supported proper science, and accepted proven facts, even when they go against our beliefs.
In this case the issue is a strict legal one. Was damage to the chimney justified in pursuit of a ‘greater good’? English law (IANAL) seems to have some problems with this concept – it is there to allow you to ‘perform emergency help’, such as break down a door to rescue a fire victim, and so I suspect that there has to be some element of emergency for it to be invoked. Incidentally, I believe this legislation has been successfully used before to defend anti-war protestors damaging military equipment – the claim being that Iraq was an illegal war was disallowed, but the claim that sabotage prevented individual ‘war crimes’ such as the use of cluster bombs over cities was allowed to be argued. So there is ‘form’, though not a full precedent. Google ‘Fairford Five’.
I assume Hanson was brought in to argue that a ‘immediate emergency’ existed. We may believe this to be unproven, but he is entitled to put his views to a court. The judges would have been in a difficult position – they must decide on the evidence presented. If goverment bodies such as NASA say that there is an emergency, the judge has little option under law.
I think the problem is that the UK and other governments have been trying to have their cake and eat it. They want there to be an ’emergency’ from which they can ‘save’ people (usually by more laws and taxes), but they also need to enforce their writ over controversial military/environmental/what-have-you decisions they make. If I can use the existence of an ’emergency’ to justify causing damage aimed at stopping any controversial action, then the rule of law is severly dented!
Under the subject heading of
“Complaint at improper involvement of a NASA employee in English Law”
I have posted the following to NASA.
Dear Sirs:
I am a British Subject resident in England and I am writing to request that NASA distance itself from actions in an English Court of Law by a NASA employee, Dr James Hansen, by issuing a public statement and by taking disciplinary proceedings against Dr Hansen.
Reasons for this request are as follows.
Members of Greenpeace, an activist group, scaled the chimney of Kingsnorth power station, England, and painted graffiti on it. Eon own the power station, and they sued the activists for recovery of the ~$60,000 it cost them to remove the graffiti. Greenpeace did not dispute the damage or its cost, but argued in Court that their activists’ actions were justified under English Law according to the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
This Act says that it is a “lawful excuse” to cause damage to a property as a method to avoid greater damage; e.g. fire fighters have a “lawful excuse” to smash a door to gain access to a building when that is action needed to fight a fire.
Greenpeace argued that their activists had such a “lawful excuse” to damage the power station because they were seeking to prevent even greater damage being caused to property by climate change induced by power stations. This damage from climate change includes flooding from rising sea levels and damage to species.
The main witness that Greenpeace had to support their case was Dr James Hansen. His authority for this was his position working for NASA. And he had already placed his views concerning Kingsnorth power station on record when, in December, he wrote an open letter to the UK Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, to urge him to prevent plans for coal-fired plants that do not capture CO2 emissions. Eon wants to build two new coal-fired units at Kingsnorth to replace the ageing plant, and UK Government is considering whether to approve the planning application for the replacement.
In the Court case, the jury found in favour of Greenpeace by a majority verdict. The statements of Dr Hansen must have been a major contribution to this result because he was the key witness for Greenpeace.
And this result has serious consequences. It has set a precedent in English case law that permits damage to the English power supply system using as a “lawful excuse” that the damage is intended to avoid climate change.
Such attacks are not restricted to grafitti. A few months ago activists stopped a coal train supplying a power station and they spread its coal over the surrounding countryside. Indeed, any act of terrorism aimed against coal-fired power stations in England and Wales now has a “lawful excuse” that will exist unless and until the UK Parliament changes the law.
I was employed as the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal (aka the National coal Board: NCB). It was clearly recognised by all that as an employee of the NCB I was responsible to UK Government. And I would have rightly suffered instant dismissal if – when in that employ – I had sent a letter to the US President similar to that which Dr Hansen sent to the UK Prime Minister: my employment defined that any such letter was being issued by the NCB and UK Government. So, I fail to understand how Dr Hansen’s letter was not issued by NASA and the US Government. And this understanding of the source of that letter is supported by Dr Hansen’s employers permitting him to travel to the UK and to put the views in that letter to an English Court of Law.
Clearly, the jury in the Court had similar understanduing to myself.
And the results are serious. As I said, any act of terrorism aimed against coal-fired power stations in England and Wales now has a “lawful excuse” that will exist unless and until the UK Parliament changes the law. This result of a US Government employee is so serious that some could consider it tantamount to an act of war.
Hence, I write to request that NASA issue a public statement and takes disciplinary action against Dr James Hansen for his actions in an English Court of Law, and thus to distance NASA from those actions.
Sincerely
Richard S Courtney
My comment via the form is below. NASA has had at least its share of ethics issues in the past, as I saw first hand in my relatively short time at MSFC.
———————————
Dr. Hansen has long been a vocal figure in the research on global climate change, and holds a position of high visibility at NASA-GISS. His recent testimony in the UK that Eco-Terrorism is valid in support of his views on GCC raises a real question as to his ability to function objectively. It also seems to be yet another abuse of the NASA misuse of position rules.
James Hansen has a long, distinguished record, but one which has progressively moved to political rather than scientific activism. In the interests of the integrity of both NASA and Dr. Hansen, it must surely be time for him to move on to an institution where the conflict of interest can be properly accommodated, and not at the expense of the taxpayers.
I have been retired for many years, but I was a proud member of NASA at MSFC for much of the 1980s. We had our own share of ethics issues, all seemingly less flagrant than this. The difference is that the issues where not just considered, but acted upon effectively. Can today’s NASA do less, or afford not to?
As a federal employee engaging in political advocacy, is not Hansen in violation of the Hatch Act? If so, for this alone he may/should be removed.
Paul,
So an ‘activist’ from a ‘animal’ welfare/rights group, see’s that a dog has been run over in the street. He decides the dog needs urgent veterinary care, So he steals a nearby car, vandalizing it by breaking the window and hot wiring it…. At his trial he is found innocent of stealing/damaging the car, probably as he had an expert (from a foreign country no less) saying the dog might have otherwise died. But the point of the trial (surely) is that the owner of the car wants compensating for his loss.
Yup, that’s reasonably close. The action has to be proportionate, so we might find that a dog dying was not sufficient, but perhaps a person?
So if you find a dying hit-and-run victim on the road, are unable to communicate with anyone, hot-wire a nearby car and bring that person to a hospital, you could use this legal argument to avoid being charged with ‘taking without consent’. Of course, you would not be charged with stealing in any case – you would have taken due care of the car and would have returned it to the owner, so you have no intent to ‘permanently deprive’.
i would guess that breaking a nearby window to use a phone in this circumstance might also be justifiable…
“Jeff,
What if their antics kill an innocent? Will Hansen be partially responsible?
Mike”
If we have a 1947/1963 winter in the UK this year, which is looking very possible, then we will have rolling blackouts, because greens have stalled new coal and nuclear for a decade.
Most people in the UK have gas central heating with a pump and controls that relies on grid electricity, without any alternative backup heat source.
A 1947/1963 winter will result in thousands of elderly Britons dying of hypothermia.
Hansen is paid by me and all other taxpayers of our Country. If he used part of his vacation time to fly to another country I have no problem with that. However, since his “expertise” was developed on government time using government facilities for which I and every other taxpayer has funded, that “expertise” belongs to us, not to the UK courts. I wonder if this would fall under proprietary information laws? At the very least he is overstepping his job description.
When I first discovered Watts Up it was very refreshing to see the graphs and intelligent discussion of the science – and now things have moved steadily onto opinions and sniping – and I have plenty of opinions – but is this what I want from Watts Up? Not really! But I will add my voice as a Brit, sometime expert witness, mostly lawyer and advocate, also former activist and practicing scientist – having worked on both sides of this particular fence (Greenpeace and the Government) –
I don’t like the way Greenpeace have used Hansen as a witness – they select the science that suits their campaign objectives. But I support Hansen’s right to speak and seriously question moves to limit that right simply because his work is supported by the US taxpayer. His expenses should be paid by the organisation he speaks for.
Many years ago, I and a small number of activist scientists, supported by environmental campaign funds, invited Prof Edward Radford over here to speak as an expert witness on the hazards of breathing in alpha particles such as plutonium and uranium dust – no doubt his work at Pittsburgh University was paid for by the US taxpayer. He was a minority opinion on the risks – but also chairman of the US BEIR committee (Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation) and directly in opposition to the UN’s committee on the same. Eventually we won our case and Radford’s position was ultimately adopted. Many workers received enhanced protection and many commuunities benefited from new legislation that I helped to draft which prevented discharging dilute solutions of plutonium into coastal seas.
I also am somewhat surprised at the collective response of Watts Up bloggers to this charge of ‘vandalism’. This was not wanton damage, but a risky climb and tricky operation to paint a slogan. I personally think Greenpeace are misled – but sincere. In the 1980s, when I was more of an activist, I supported Greenpeace in climbing Big Ben and putting a banner up to coincide with Ronald Reagan’s visit – telling him it was time to stop nuclear weapon testing (in Nevada, and with us Brits sharing a slot). My two brothers and I were directly involved and we all spent a day in jail and came up before the magistrates – arguing we were trying to keep the peace, as much as the military were.
The British courts some time back exonerated two women for bulldozing several very expensive fighter planes at a military base – agreeing they were trying to prevent a greater evil; and also Greenpeace activists for trashing a field of GMO corn.
Personally, it makes me feel good to know that the courts have this much freedom, that experts and government employers are free to speak and to travel – the reverse control would not feel at all good – and I have to accept that sometimes it works for my side, and at others against. Is that not what freedom is about? And I am only too well aware that it might be a different story if activists against AGW dogma were to request someone like Drew Shindell to explain his theories of solar UV, the polar vortex, ‘quiet sun’ episodes and the jetstream shifting…..but then who knows?
Anthony, I agree with your post completely.
From my comment form submitted today to NASA:
“Since he has shown that activism in support of a cause he believes in (CO2 warming) is not a crime, can NASA depend on him to be impartial in monitoring the GISTEMP dataset? Or a better question: is he the right person to maintain this vital dataset after he has show that he will take extraordinary actions to forward his own agenda on global warming? Do we have confidence that the GISTEMP dataset has not already been modified, revised, and changed by Dr. Hansen with no scientific basis, only his driving obsession with CO2 warming?
I suggest it is time for Dr. James Hansen to be removed from office.
I look forward to your response.”
Please continue to keep us informed on any developments on the Dr. Hansen front.
Sheesh…Leave him at his position, but somebody should go slash the tires on his cars and stuff cheese in his tailpipe. Everyday. He couldn’t bring charges because of the precedent he set.
(Please don’t really do it, I’m not advocating vandalism but pointing out irony)
Don’t fire him. There is a recession coming on.
These are trying times. Money is tight.
Perhaps the good Dr. Hansen has overspent his budget in some way.
Perhaps he has too much taxpayer money to spend.
Does NASA really need to be in the buisness of monitoring climate and weather
with anything that does not involve spacecraft?
I think a thorough review of NASA’s mission is in order.
Re: £70?
She was fined £350 with £350.12 costs and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The maximum fine is £1,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2776669/Mother-fined-700-for-putting-rubbish-out-on-wrong-day.html
REPLY: Thanks Paul, just goes to show you can’t believe everything you see printed 😉
I guess this means that Al Gore will be canceling his subscription.
Pierre,
It was a criminal trial before a jury. Juries can arrive at strange verdicts on occasion. The judge may or may not be a kook, but he may not have had much to do with it. You’d have to look at the transcript and his summing up.
I can’t imagine that the prosecution did a very good job, and the jury may have been over-awed by the high-profile expert witnesses.
Furthermore, I don’t see this being a landmark decision because as you say, it would make it open for all sorts of vandalism to be justified on the grounds of saving the planet.
With another jury and on another day, people doing this sort of thing would be for the high jump. In that case, we wouldn’t hear much about it.
Caleb,
Keep up the letters. I got the same treatment when I first contacted my Congressman about another issue that was VERY important to me, totally unrelated to climate change. I got form letters the first three times. The fourth time I got a call from an aide (who tired to explain the policy I was apoplectic about as though I didn’t know anything about it, which angered me greatly). The fifth time I got a call from another aide who actually listened to me. You just have to be persistent, 1 letter won’t do it.
____________
I guess this is more evidence of the Bush Administration’s effort to ‘silence’ him? Yet another thing the Administration has proved basically incompetent at. 😉
Pierre,
and people emit CO2, don’t they?
Hmm, as a UK citizen this leaves a very unsavoury aftertaste.
But Hansen may have found the perfect outlet to turn his crusade into a modern-day Lysenkoism. I’ve always shied away from such comparisons because I did not think in the modern world there would be scope to go so far, but now I start to wonder.
The reason this is the perfect outlet for Hansen is that as an expert witness, he has immunity from suit. The only legal risk he faces is perjury, but perjury requires strong evidence of lies, which is virtually impossible. Take his projection that 400 species will go extinct for each power plant; this is an absurd claim on the face of it, but how do you prove it is a lie or negligent? By the time that can be realistically tested, we’ll all be long gone.
So Hansen can turn up at pretty much any trial and say whatever he wants. Then it gets real good. The method used in UK courts to “police” the veracity of expert witness is – the professional institutions. If someone gives “bad” expert witness, they cannot be sued, but they can be dismissed from their professional body. And we all know how impartial the professional bodies are, don’t we? The bottom line is Hansen can say what he wants but if a sceptical scientist makes counter claims, a witch hunt can be set up through the institutions.
There is just one provision that can protect us from this creeping Lysenkoism in climate science. Under the Civil Procedure Rules part 35, there is a protocol for the instruction of expert witnesses. An expert witness has a duty to the court, and the following guidance is given:
1. Independence from the prosecution / defence
2. Provide […] objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters of his expertise and
3. Should never assume the role of an advocate.
In Hansen’s case, I think he is OK on number 1, questionable on number 2 and absolutely fails number 3. Roger Pielke Jr., for example, has often illustrated Hansen’s advocacy on AGW. Under these circumstances, the judge is entitled to throw out the expert witness statements. This seems to be the only remaining protection a court could offer.
Info from LegalWeek.
By his actions in voluntarily offering his “expert” testimony, Dr. Hansen is santioning criminal activity. Not surprising since his views of the criminality of the use of fossil fuels and their promotion are well known.
Perhaps Vice President Palin might prevail upon the NASA Administrator, Michael D. Griffin, to accept Dr. Hansen’s resignation before proceding with more vigorous action.
I’ve long had an uneasy suspicion that democratic society is undergoing a fundamental shift away from the principles that have served it so well since the Enlightenment and that we are moving ever closer to the superstition and public hysteria that characterised the Medieval world view.
I used to joke with friends about the possibility of “Climate Change Heresy” becoming a crime punishable by burning at the stake. This latest example of the breakdown of the principles of the Rule of Law within a democratic society gives me real cause for concern that another bout of state sponsored extremism may be just around the corner – there now seems to be a genuine possibility that my joke may come back to haunt my childrens’ generation.
Perhaps the Climate Change issue will truly be the disaster the Hansens of this world are predicting….just not in the way they expect!
Hansen is one of the climate skeptics best assets. With a friends like Hansen, AGW doesn’t need enemies.
BTW – did Hansen vandalise his plane, on the way to the UK, for burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2?
Caleb (03:56:09) :
Hey, I got a previous version of that form letter back in May when I wrote him touting my climate science web page. The differences are a little customization in the first sentence or so, the paragraph citing my concerns (which didn’t quite match what I wrote about), and the bill he’s pushing.
So far haven’t haven’t taken him up on his generous offer of “periodic e-mail updates on what I am doing to help New Hampshire.”