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.
Jihadists in Britain can now change their theme to stopping global warming, and act with even more impunity than they did under the guise of an established religion.
Plane Stupid protesters can now attack Heathrow terminal 5, 10 Downing Street and Parliament, all for the good of the earth. They have legal precedent.
England should turn off their coal burning power plants for a few days in support of the terrorists. The country desperately needs a serious kick in the pants to regain an attachment to the real world. One would think that two years without a hot day might have clued them in, but apparently that wasn’t adequate.
I wrote this about two weeks ago.
Jim Hansen will fail.
I have been following the development of global warming for the last two years. I just finished reading all the posts on Jim Hansen’s website documenting his understanding of the science and his efforts to communicate it. I regularly follow developments on many climate sites pro and con.
Explaining, attempts at persuasion, argument, appealing to others’ humanity (save the planet for your children and grandchildren and the animals too (Don’t vote, can’t talk.) will NOT get the United States to lead the fight against global warming (place a moratorium on coal plants that don’t sequester carbon or result in a large scale conversion to carbon neutral energy).
It’s NOT going to happen, EVEN in the face of mounting evidence that we are approaching or have passed ‘tipping points’.
Jim Hansen is learning that.
He’s already encountered what he appropriately calls ‘green wash,’ politicians talking a good talk that expresses agreement and even commitment to change, but lacks substantive determination. There are two kinds of individuals, both lacking courage, that communicate this way and one is far worse than the other. The first is someone who understands and agrees, but who out of fear does not take a stand. The second is the smiling glad handing, back stabbing weasel who will step over your body to further his or her own interests.
From the frustration that mounts as he literally attempts to save the planet and humanity as we know it and because of the slowness of others to respond meaningfully, Hansen may resort to more radical actions.
If he does, he will give his opposition a readymade gift– a way to marginalize and nullify his voice while continuing with business as usual, profiting while exploiting and destroying the planet and endangering our futures.
What to do?
Hansen et al and all their evidence and arguments lack the leverage necessary to create change and on their own are not powerful enough to overcome the inertia of the status quo and those benefitting from it.
Newscasts show the bill for our CO2 emissions is coming due. It appears that the consequences are going to escalate. Politicians will promise. Special interests will delay. We will all pay.
What to do?
Without accountability there can be no change.
With anonymity there is no accountability.
It is time to put the spot light of attention on those who are delaying change. Names need to be put with faces and actions so that later there can be accountability. If deniers are right, then they deserve our heartfelt thanks. If not, then not.
It’s time to start taking names.
The fact is that if we are cooling long term and deeply, then encumbering carbon will starve and freeze untold numbers of those poor people living on the margin. Hansen’s advocacy for restricting carbon will come back to haunt him.
I believe he started with good intentions, but he has badly lost his way. He is leading the world into great, great evil.
=========================================
I don’t know how British law works, but in the US, the govt cannot appeal an innocent verdict.
This could also cut the other way. For instance the example given by Paul (03:27:00) : .
Or you could start to protest at Hansen’s house on the possibility that, if some brilliant idiot takes him seriously and comes up with some way to remove most of the CO2 from the atmosphere, enough so that the level drops below 180 ppm and all of the plants die, we are all in danger of dying. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds, as there are probably several ways in which some sort of positive feedback action could be initiated to reduce CO2 and if control were lost, oops.
[SNIP that sort of commentary is not appropriate for this forum]
The greater harm defense is usually used for example, if I was to break into a house in order to rescue a child that was choking.
Trespass into a neighbors yard in order to put out a trash fire.
Things like that.
This case has to be the most absurd use of the greater harm defense that I have ever heard of.
Saddly the GISS data set is so corrupted by all the bias and the “adjustments” that it is basically completely worthless. It is far too late to fire Hansen.
Whatever other body of work he has, his deliberate abandonment of science in the case of the GISS data and this legal case, brings it’s value all into question. Hansens only surviving legacy as a scientist will be for fraud unless he admits and corrects his behavior.
I wrote very similar comments as these people have, and I said that unless Hansen is fired for the reasons I provided, I will write both my senators and my representative to discontinue public funding to GISS and that I will draft a petition of a necessary amount to do so.
Hopefully that gets them stiring.
I wanted to let you know what I said in my letter to NASA
My letter to NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_nasa_form.html
It is unbelievably unconscienable that you could even consider to keep this man on with NASA. He has done more damage than thousands of 9/11 terrorists by promoting, under the NASA letterhead, the greatest fraud in memory. This fraud, and potentially subsequent, misguided, calamitous laws that could result, will destroy our economy and our country. Believe me, this man, and his right hand henchman, Mr Al Gore, have done more damage to our nation than you’ll ever realize.
I consider this kind of action to be treasonous in nature, and will result in the promotion of all kinds of eco terrorism through out this nation and the world. Now I know the real reason why Russian and Indian scientists are laughing at the stupidity of the US. They know the reality of people in power who have “eyes to see”, and cannot see, and have “ears to hear”, and cannot hear.
I will be on the front lines to do everything in my personal power to stop this kind of nonsense.
VERY VERY SINCERELY,
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.
Not to worry. I have a nice fireplace in which I can burn logs and heat the whole house. And logs are carbon neutral as they are only releasing the CO2 they took from the atmosphere in the first place (or something). So, problem solved. We should all burn more wood to keep warm. We can use all that rainforrest they are cutting down to make way for crops for biofuel.
Who’d have thought that cutting down the “lungs of the planet” could be good for the planet? Only a few years ago people were trying to stop deforestation, now we are all for it so we can stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Erm…
He should be removed for not allowing the rest of the employees at GISS to start doing objective climate science.
In 1982, a Committee was established to determine an estimate for CO2 sensitivity (the temp rise for a doubling of CO2 and GHGs).
At the time, there was only two climate models which were sophisticated enough to produce an estimate. One run by Manake predicted 2.5C per doubling. The other run by Hansen at GISS predicted 4.5C per doubling. The Committee just split the difference and started using 3.5C per doubling.
Since then, the figure has been reduced to 3.0C per doubling but Hansen’s models sometimes still show 4.5C. ALL of the other climate models have used Hansen’s or Manake’s models as a base.
In other words, Hansen has a death grip on the entire climate science field and especially at GISS (even RealClimate posted the other day that the estimate of global warming’s temp impact is entirely based on the climate models.)
We need to fire/retire him so that more objective scientists can do more objective research. How can anyone at GISS fix GISS’s climate model without being ostracized by Hansen (he runs the organization.)
Could it not be argued that, as Mr Hansen has been spear-heading the AGW agenda for the past 20 years or more, the KingsNorth’protestors’ beliefs and subsequent actions were, in part, initiated by Hansen himself? His ‘expert opinion’ is a merely reiterating the propaganda that caused the actions to be taken in the first place.
Also, If the ‘lawful excuse’ for causing damage defence is to be used, wouldn’t the damage caused have to be shown to be necessary (eg, break a window to save someone)? How does painting a smokestack have any relevance to saving the world?
I would say this case will go to a higher court. It is where it needs to go anyway…. It’s not over yet.
A statement on the acquital from Mr Hansen is at:
http://www.the-environmentalist.org/2008/09/in-defense-of-kingsnorth-six.html
and his court statement (provided by him in the first link) is at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf
He is still positing that the wrong people are on trial, viz:
The main point, that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts but continued to ignore them are more generally valid worldwide. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.
[…] discussion on the role of James Hansen here (a plausible case is presented that Hansen has breached codes of practice) and on the role of Zac […]
I’m no British Solicitor, but in the US, an acquittal cannot be appealed. A legal excuse defense is exactly that. It admits the crime, but argues it should be excused. In this case, the excuse being the harm prevented is greater than the harm committed.
Defacing private property with a socialist environmental slogan caused 30,000 pounds damage. What harm did it prevent? Was there any proof that even one gram of CO2 discharge was prevented? In fact, the manufacture of the paint used to deface the property caused CO2, and possibly other emissions. (Cooking latex requires energy.)
Simply put, the question should never have been presented to the jury. The burden of an affirmative defense is on the Defense, not the prosecution. The Defendant must prove the elemental facts of the affirmative defense. The Judge is the gatekeeper. If insufficient evidence of the legal excuse exists such that a REASONABLE person can believe the facts, then the jury doesn’t get the question.
These are pretrial issues. If the Judge says she will allow the defense, then the Prosecutor needs to take an interlocutory appeal. That is, before trial, a higher court considers the legal question, and if it agrees with the Prosecutor direct the trial court accordingly, including prohibiting evidence of the “excuse” and jury instruction. However, once jeopardy attaches by the rendering of a verdict, the individuals are free and clear on criminal charges.
Will a civil suit follow? I hope the power company pursues these vandals and their supporting organizations. It’s doubtful that British law provides the extensive discovery rules of US Courts, but if it does, digging around in the private correspondence of Greenpeace, WWF, etc. would be some interesting reading.
Dispatched a civilized, respectful ear-full.
I have not posted here before although I have been a reader for a long time. I have to say, nothing before has motivated me quit so much to move me to make my voice heard. I have just submitted the following comment to NASA:
“If I thought for a moment that James Hansen was conscious that his position of authority and influence might have a weighed the decision of the jury in the UK vandalism case against the “Kingsnorth Six” beyond the contribution of an ‘expert witness’, then I can only say that as a US government employee he made a very, very poor decision.
On the other hand, how am I to believe that a man of his experience and profile (an activist, as well as a scientist) could be so naive as to not be aware that he has sway beyond the mere delivery of impartial scientific facts?
Either way, as a very high profile representative of one of the most recognised and respected institutions in the world, surely his appearance in this affair represents a gross professional blunder – I have to ask: could a high profile organisation of any kind tolerate this kind of association with incompetence?
Yours sincerely,
Michael Bott, UK”
You know, I’d be really surprised if the UK government weren’t absolutely livid about this – there will be words being exchanged behind the scenes, I’m sure. It will be interesting to watch for any manifestation of a shakeout behind the scenes over the coming weeks and months.
Watts Next? Torching SUVs in the name of eco-terrorism? Anarchy in the name of AGW? The UK has set an embarrassing precedent.
Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.
– William Frank Buckley, Jr. (1925),
US journalist.
Hansen has run to the aid of this group giving scientific legitimacy to their motivations, the climate change defense.
London -2012…
Police Respond to an altercation..
Why did you assualt this man?
He was killing me.
Where is his weapon?
Right then, have a nice night sir.
I am old fashioned I guess and I believe in the rule of law and that there is civil accountability.
Free speech does not insulate you from the results of what you say, and Hansen has said a great many things.
Anthony, thanks for making this travesty of the court system more widely known. I think the judge and the prosecution are mainly to blame for the jury’s decision. In the end, the jury’s ruling is based not on what is right or wrong, but on which side makes a more compelling case, and whether the judge maintains strict adherence to law while the case is presented. It is clear to me that the prosecution should have removed Hansen as an expert witness based on his lack of impartiality. The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore Hansen’s testimony for the same reason. It seems that an appeal could be filed based on Hansen being an unsuitable expert witness.
I’ve sent in my note to NASA, which ends with-
I am not advocating that Hansen be fired, since his overt and misguided advocacy of an impending climate crisis has great entertainment value. It does not, however, reflect well on NASA as a professional scientific organization. I no longer accept anything published or uttered by Hansen as having scientific merit, due to his numerous prior non-scientific, advocacy-based and extremist-laced statements concerning global warming and climate change. I would suggest that there are other employees at NASA who would be more suitable choices for Hansen’s current position.
Peter Taylor:”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”
If Hansen were speaking and presenting scientific agruments to a government body for the purpose of helping them with policy making then OK, that would certainly fall within his job. But to testify at a crimminal trial in another country expressing his personal views as a representative of NASA goes over the line. If he wants to champion his personal cause then he needs to resign and present himself as “former NASA” whatever he wants to call himself and now a private citizen.
The British government has a number of people (socialists and communists — at least at heart — call them “statists”) who are using the climate change issue as a way of arrogating increasing amounts of power to/for the state (and themselves, of course.)
Hansen doesn’t know much about politics outside the US. He’s a scientist by training. Activism is a hobby, not a result of temprement, much like Sagan before him (who was also quite wrong.) The government case could have asked for any number of homegrown experts (e.g. from the Met Office) but didn’t, did they? Hansen thought one thing. Those who wanted him thought something else entirely. Hansen didn’t know.
So here we have Hansen using his activist clothes testifying because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. He’s got no idea he’s a pawn. You guys have it wrong; if anything, Hansen ought to be fired for his gullibility. For being, interestingly enough, a victim of sorts. All he managed to do was help the bad guys in their show trial.
Because I used tag braces a line was hidden in my previous post…
London -2012…
Police Respond to an altercation..
Why did you assualt this man?
He was killing me.
Where is his weapon?
(points to a H2 parked nearby)
Right then, have a nice night sir.
Maybe the UK needs a CO2 free month, a month when no CO2 producing processes are allowed. There would be no coal fired power plants running, no oil fired plants, no gas fired plants, no cars no buses and no trains unless they run on electricity produced by non-fossil fuel sources.
After one month attitudes might change.