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.
I’d bet that in the current climate he is more likely to be promoted. My prediction is new Chief Science adviser to the new US government or whatever the title is.
Not being an American, I’ve also posted a message on NASA’s site. I hope I don’t need a reply for the following:
“To: Michael D. Griffin
I’m particulary ashamed about NASA’s James Hansen behaviour in the Greenpeace trial in the UK. Not being an American, I’ve praised the many men who dedicate their lives to science. Till now.
There should be no place for activists in science. There should be no place for Hansen in NASA, whom clearly supports criminal acts on other’s infrastructure. And please remember today is 9/11.
I would appreciate a reply if Mr Hansen’s stays in office, explaining your view on why he should not be fired.”
Ecotretas
“Hardcore-environmentalists” as you call them, perhaps have a mental disorder, or perhaps they’re the parrot in the mine who see the construction of more coal-power stations as abhorrent act from an administration who lack the will or the imagination to lead us properly during a time when we need real leadership.
The juries out, folks, we need to act. Building new coal plants is a symbolic act in the face of the evidence. Climbing a tower and painting the name of the Prime Minister is an equally symbolic act, though an imaginative and brave one.
Dr James Hansen wasn’t explaining away the actions of people who destroyed or maimed an important piece of infrastructure, he was taking part in a gesture of commitment. And it is a gesture not towards the planet — no matter what it will certainly be fine in another million years or so — but towards our future on this planet.
There’s no God, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Shinto, Sun… who’ll step in and take care of us all. It’s up to us. Disparaging the actions of a few who think the time to act forcefully is now is certainly no help, another symbolic act if you will, clouding the issue with arguments of funding and loyalty. You should be proud you’ve got a moral man is such an important position, one who backs his science with words and actions.
Further in support of simon talbot (14:53:47), the fact that
you have left standing without comment or rebuke, calls for
Hansen [to suffer bodily harm]
And all this for the ‘crime’ of free speech.
Shame on you.
[REPLY: Those comments have been removed, thank you for pointing them out – I’ve been away from moderation most of today, had I seen them they would have been removed immediately. Since the comments have been removed at the source, they don’t get repeated here in your own post.
NOTICE TO ALL: anyone that makes any types of these suggestions again will be banned- Anthony]
To add to Jeez’s response to Simon Talbot
He sure wasn’t subpoena’d. And the subject of who paid his expenses and whether he punched his time card before he left are still on the table.
Not exactly “free” speech if he did it on the US Gov’t’s dime.
fred
Tony Edwards and Fernando Mafili’s suggestions are direct corollary’s to the behavior Hansen is encouraging. Maybe we should rise above it. Maybe we should point out where his logic leads us. It’s a judgement call.
[SNIP adds nothing to this discussion, tone it down]
“The juries out, folks, we need to act.”
No, when the jury is out we do not need to act. The analogy is to a court case after the two sides have made their arguments but before the jury has returned a verdict (final decision). It may also express that we are waiting to see what the results of something will be.
I don’t even think the contralto (gravitationally-challenged female singer) is warming up yet.
Dr Hansen lost me last year when he signed this as:
James E. Hansen Ph.D.
Director
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Adjunct Professor
Columbia University Earth Institute:
An Urgent Call to Action:
Scientists and Evangelicals Unite to Protect Creation
January 17, 2007
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
Our Shared Concern
We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that
sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen throughout the natural
world, including a cascading set of problems such as climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species
extinctions, as well as the spread of human infectious diseases, and other accelerating threats to the health of
people and the well-being of societies. Each particular problem could be enumerated, but here it is enough to say
that we are gradually destroying the sustaining community of life on which all living things on Earth depend.
The costs of this destruction are already manifesting themselves around the world in profound and painful ways.
The cost to humanity is already significant and may soon become incalculable. Being irreversible, many of these
changes would affect all generations to come.
We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative. It addresses without
discrimination the interests of all humanity as well as the value of the non-human world. It requires a new moral
awakening to a compelling demand, clearly articulated in Scripture and supported by science, that we must
steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and
healthful environment. For many of us, this is a religious obligation, rooted in our sense of gratitude for Creation
and reverence for its Creator.
One fundamental motivation that we share is concern for the poorest of the poor, well over a billion people, who
have little chance to improve their lives in devastated and often war-ravaged environments. At the same time,
the natural environments in which they live, and where so much of Earth’s biodiversity barely hangs on, cannot
survive the press of destitute people without other resources and with nowhere else to go.
We declare that every sector of our nation’s leadership—religious, scientific, business, political, and
educational—must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies
required to address these worsening problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays.
Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day. We pledge to work together at every level to lead our
nation toward a responsible care for creation, and we call with one voice to our scientific and evangelical
colleagues, and to all others, to join us in these efforts
Alright I’m pretty much done with this thread, we’ve got bad behaviour going on on both sides of the debate and I think the polarization on the issue makes any further discussion moot. The thread is closed to comments. – Anthony