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.
OOPs I forgot, no cooking with natural gas, propane, wood or charcoal.
Of course to go truly CO2 free there could be no breathing either, but that might be a bit extreme.
This all sounds a bit like “The Royal Society for Putting Things On Top Of Other Things”
No idea he’s a pawn?? He’s the friggin’ queen!!
Aussie John (07:02:34) :
your link to the-environmentalist.org nails it!
From Hansen
Good news from the UK: the Kingsnorth Six were acquitted by a Crown Court jury. They were members of a group of 23 Greenpeace volunteers who had attempted to shut down the Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant, specifically the six were the ones painting the smokestack with “Gordon Bin It” when interrupted by the police. Their defense was ‘lawful excuse’, that they were protecting property of greater value (the Earth!) from the impact of climate change. We will need our Mercedes-driving lawyer friends to tell us if the verdict has greater significance — but the jurors were common people, not politicians. It was an impressive show — judge and lawyers with their white wigs — hopefully it has an impact.
It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.
The article is signed with “Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences”
Clearly he sees no difference between professional and personal.
Hansen is one scary dude and shouldn’t be working for what is supposed to be an impartial government agency.
When temperatures were falling in the 1970’s, Hansen believe burning fossil fuel would send us into an ice age. When temperatures started rising, Hansen turned about and said burning fossil fuel will cook us all. The common thread in all of this is that he is simply an anti-fossil fuel activist who will used whatever he can find to validate his views.
Sure he should be fired. He isn’t a climatologist and he doesn’t appear to be much of a scientist of any sort. He is attempting to justify an end with whatever means he can find. But firing him would be politically risky.
Anthony,
you should have handled this the way you did with the public comment posts encouraging your viewers to post their opinions without adding your’s.
Starting this off with “Fire Dr. James Hansen, now.” implies you think we should all call for his termination at NASA. Calling for opinions is one thing, encouraging a flood of pointed comments is quite another.
I think Hansen is of the lowest caliber and …bla bla…. like most other people here but you are turning your blog into just another cheap activist site.
I pray you get back to objective, impartial commentary based on facts and strict discouragement of ad homenim attacks and bulleying.
Junk Science’s web site started as a varied and informative site that dealt with everything related to science, it is almost solely about AGW debunking now and not worth the time to read. Please don’t go down that road, you are much better than that.
An adoring fan.
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.Michael Bott
Yup. One of the main ‘excuses’ the UK (and US) home Security Services have had to keep their budgets since the decline of the Soviet threat is the concept of ‘protecting the state infrastructure’ from ‘terrorism’. ‘Homeland’ Security, and the UK equivalent ‘Critical Infrastructure’ security are both in receipt of large handouts. Here is an example of just part of the UK service – http://www.cpni.gov.uk/
And now we find out that anyone can just enter a power station and disable it without punishment? If I were Greenpeace, I would be commissioning and training sabotage teams immediately. You are right, Martin, there will be a lot of unhappy and confused MI5 staff at the moment…
[SNIP – comment not appropriate for this forum]
This would have been an ideal opportunity for Lord Monckton to confront Mr. Hansen. Though I would expect, that Hansen would have stayed at home if Lord Monckton would have been invited.
The question remains, what criminal act will be legal after this verdict.
Is it now perfectly and legally possible to ruin other people’s scientific careers, just because they may have a different view about so called global warming, while allowing their scientific research would do harm to the AGW agenda ?
Is it possible to falsify or discard scientific data if a resercher believes, the data does fully not support the AGW models or that the global warming trend may be “hidden” somewhere not yet fully understood.
Just as precautionary measure against the much greater threat, that “deniers” may use the “uncorrected” data to disqualify the AGW agenda ?
I’m very curious what the standards or criteria are for government scientists appearing as expert witnesses. In the US, in a trial before a lay jury, juries are not presumed competent to evaluate expert testimony. Thus an expert witness has to be qualified to the court through voir dire examination. It is presumed that the jury is going to base their determination of conflicting expert testimony not on the merits of the testimony, which they are not qualified to assess, but on the qualifications of the witness. I don’t know if this is the practice in UK courts or not, but assuming something similar occurs, what “qualified” Hansen to be accepted by the Court as an expert? Did he represent his qualifications to include his NASA position? What are the federal government guidelines for this sort of thing? Does anyone know?
I’ve given this a fair amount of thought. I think firing Hansen will just martyrize him. I think that this sort of thing (the testimony) is a defeat-that-is-a-victory that will redound. I think that this is a painful but necessary part of giving him enough rope to hang himself with.
Besides, if Obama is elected, he might well bring him back, amid accolades and hooting and hollering in general. Then he’d be an even more untouchable resurrected martyr.
I think it’s probably best to let it spin out the way it’s been doing.
P.S., I totally agree with the Rev than he deserves to be fired. Keeping him on is just one of those, “Tactics, Comrades, Tactics,” things.
So people at NASA don’t get free speech?
It has been an ugly day for law and common sense in the world.
Yes.
A better analogy. An activist for the poor spray paints the words “Liar and mass murderer” on Dr. Hansen’s car and shoots his locks with superglue.
In court the defense presents Bjorn Lomborg to argue the plain truth that a slowdown of global economic growth will result in the deaths of millions.
I lie about my beliefs to avoid recusal from the jury, and then hang the jury by voting innocent for as long as necessary regardless of the facts presented at trial.
The whole green movement has been using ad hominem attacks and bulleying tactics for years!!!! Hanson himself has called for the jailing of people who
disagree with him. Wake-up and smell the roses the guy has lost it.
If James Hanson feels so strongly about coal why not go and scream at the Chinese?
Is Briton going to change anything by opening one or two more coal plants?
Maybe if these guys and girls at greenpeace want to shake things up a bit
they can go climb smoke stacks in China! see if jimmy comes to bale them out.
I really like reading junk science’s site. I think the reason AGW get’s so much press there is It is a world changing movement. It’s not just someone raving about second hand smoke any more.
The AGW crowd is out to radically change our way of life using fear mongering, half truths and in some cases bald face lies. I think that the green movement has become so full of its self it can no longer see the forest because of the trees. We cannot endanger human life by throwing much of the world into fuel poverty.
We have seen how that has worked in Africa. People of the world need a hand up, not a hand out. Massive wealth distribution programs like carbon trading are a bad idea and won’t help anything.
Why do you think the U.N. keeps pushing this? because they
and the green movement get their hands on billions in these wealth redistribution
plans. You trust the U.N. I don’t, And I don’t trust NASA anymore either.
Rick – “(Please don’t really do it, I’m not advocating vandalism but pointing out irony)”
I believe you left out the “wink, wink” that folks at Greenpeace and such always give after they make the disclaimer that they really don’t want people to spike trees.
Anthony,
As a UK citizen I am disturbed by the results of the court case. On the other hand, I think it’s a storm in a teacup and will quickly be forgotten. It seems to me that as the UK economy heads into recession, the UK public in general are becoming ever more sceptical and/or indifferent about AGW. The court case and the antics of Greenpeace aren’t about to reverse this trend.
And do any of us really believe that NASA will take any sort of disciplinary action against DR. Hansen at all? They haven’t in the past, so why should they now.
I would also like to say I completely agree with Scott Covert’s comment above. I read “Watts Up” on a regular basis for its scientific content, and would hate to see this diluted by too many political pieces.
I’m not sure outright firing, or the call for outright firing is a good idea. I suppose it’s because it’s a common tactic for greenies – such as those who called for all sorts of heads at Britain’s Channel 4 TV station because of the Global Warming Swindle documentary.
I’m in favour of a person writing a letter outlining the various abuses of position, and even of posting where it was sent, but would draw the line before advocating what the end result should be, or encouraging anyone else do the same or posting an online form.
People have already mentioned the Martyr aspect. At the end of the day, it is a decision that can only be made by his bosses, who are sure to be afraid of the inevitable PR fallout even if they wanted to rid themselves of the guy. Not just that, but there are plenty of other NASA employees who are also alarmists, such as the ‘real scientists’ so it would be very difficult to just fire their boss and not restructure the entire department.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-do-so-many-outspoken-alarmists-have.html
Demands for an external audit of that particular organisation, however? Fully in favour of that!
Peter Taylor says,
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
Would you feel as sanguine about judicial discretion were someone to bulldoze your house or the things you use for your livelihood for the ‘greater good’ and get away with it?
G Alston (08:12:21) :
anthony great work in letting us know about this. I notice that Bi — IJI has not responded as of yet could it be that he has no accomplishments?
Not to mention he’s got a wicked combover.
The buck stops in the Oval Office. Bless his heart, George W. Bush has a certain soft touch in matters of people. It gets in the way of business at times. Many hoped for major reorgs of the Federal bureaucracy after Jan 20, 2001. It never happened en masse (one cannot count the domestic security “reorg” as it did not really result in many people being RIFed or fired). While the WoT has been a major source of sensory overload in DC, still, things might have been done. As I understand it, W is a well trained devotee of Dale Carnegie Training. That is a good set of tools for things like small businesses dealing with each other, but in the backstabbing world of DC (let alone the world stage) you cannot always begin in a friendly way.
Thanks for this piece, Anthony. He needs to be gone; the sooner the better.
It’s strange that the more ignorant these people are, the better they are able to spread their germs of ignorance, seemingly unchallenged in the media.
To those worried about scientific vs. political content?
Unfortunately, there is no way to separate the two anymore. Hansen is no more qualified to determine that vandalism is ‘justified’ than is Matt Damon, however he has used his position and sullied the good name of NASA in order to do so.
Maybe you don’t see this as vandalism. Great! Just send me your home address, and I’ll ensure that nobody, er, “vandalizes” your home for any good cause…
I personally will never understand the mindset of people who do these kinds of stupid, childish stunts. Does anyone ever actually change their minds? What kind of fool says to himself, “oh, I didn’t believe in AGW, but with those wacky writings on the smokestacks I’m starting to come around” ? Is it supposed to speak to how fervent someone is in their belief when they risk life and limb and legal action in order to deface someone else’s property?
I’m fervently against these people, Hansen, Gore, Pachauri… where do I sign up to perform vandalism against them to show others how I feel?
[REPLY – I must presume that you are speaking facetiously regarding “signing up to perform vandalism”. So I’ll pass on this. And I feel your pain. But please, people, no incitement to actual lawbreaking. ~ Evan]