Gavin Schmidt’s time spent on editing realclimate.org during working hours apparently was the trigger for a broader investigation.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Contacts: Christopher Horner, chris.horner@atinstitute.org Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
ATI Law Center Asks Court to Force NASA to Produce Ethics-Related, Outside Employment Records of Dr. James Hansen
The American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to release ethics records for taxpayer-funded global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, specifically records that pertain to his outside employment, revenue generation, and advocacy activities.
ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen’s outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years. This money comes on top of and, more troubling from an ethics and legal perspective, is all “related to” and sometimes even expressly for his taxpayer-funded employment, all of which outside employment commenced when Hansen stepped up his “global warming” activism from his perch at NASA.
On January 19, ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act request (PDF) with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which sought records detailing NASA’s and Hansen’s compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Thus far the agency has denied ATI’s request for Hansen’s Form 17-60 “Application for permission for outside employment and other activity”, and internal discussions about same.
Arguing that release would constitute a “clearly unwarranted violation of Hansen’s privacy rights” NASA claims that ATI’s pages of explanation failed to establish that the one-page applications — if they exist, which ATI has reason to doubt — would“contribute to the public’s understanding of the activities of the Government, or how it would shed light on NASA’s performance of its statutory duties.”
This despite that whether NASA complies with ethics laws is patently of public interest, and that Hansen’s position requires him to file vastly more detailed Public Financial Disclosure filings, or Form SF 278, which are made available to the public on request. Both are for the simple reason that a senior employee’s outside revenue-generating activities are inherently in the public’s interest according to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
Dr. Hansen engages in high-profile public advocacy with regard to global warming and energy policy, directly trading on his platform as a NASA astronomer to gain interest and attention. This outside employment and other activities relating to his work have included consulting, highly compensated speeches, six-figure “prizes”, a commercial book, advising Al Gore on his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and, lately, advising litigants on suing states and the federal government.
Since escalating the “provocative” (in Hansen’s word) nature of his advocacy in a 2006 “60 Minutes interview”, these outside activities have become extraordinarily lucrative — yielding on average more than a quarter of a million dollars per year in extra income between 2007 and 2010 from outside sources, all relating to the work he is paid by the taxpayer to perform for NASA.
ATI’s director of litigation Christopher Horner says, “Under federal statutes and NASA rules, employees may not privately benefit from public office; outside income must be disclosed, certain activities avoided, andpermission must be applied for before engaging in permissible outside employment or activities. ATI’s Request seeks official documents which — if they in fact exist — would inform the public about NASA’s and Hansen’s adherence to all such rules which compliance, given records already obtained and the public record, is in doubt.”
Dr. Hansen has admitted that lucrative offers of “prizes” and “awards” for his public service began flowing after that “60 Minutes” interview, in which he accused the Bush Administration of “censoring” his global warming views. Records show a sudden spike in highly compensated speeches on the subject of his work, as well.
NASA has already provided Form 17-60 documents for Dr. Hansen’s subordinate Gavin Schmidt to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Schmidt writes for and edits the climate alarmism blog RealClimate.org, during normal business hours. That Hansen and NASA had not required Schmidt to file Form 17-60 seeking permission for these activities, until NASA was asked about this matter, triggered ATI’s inquiry into whether Hansen, too, was avoiding this requirement. Other records obtained by CEI and posted on ATI’s Web site indicate that Dr. Hansen has also used NASA staff for his own commercial activities.
The President and the Attorney General have made clear their commitment to transparency and a high standard of ethical behavior by government employees. NASA needs to clear the air by releasing the documents about Dr. Hansen and about whether he had permission to wear his government hat when engaging in a lucrative effort to sway government policy, said Dr. David Schnare, Director of the ATI Environmental Law Center.
See ATI Environmental Law Center’s Complaint and Prayer for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in federal court in its Freedom of Information Act case against NASA (PDF).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some of the commenters here miss the point that Dr. James Hansen
is not the one who has to answer the ATI’s FOI request
for information. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) are on the
legal hook to pony up the documents that are required by existing law to
be on file and available.
Other than filling in and submitting a single-page Form 17-60, by law an
annual requirement, the good Dr. Hansen hasn’t anything else to do. The
fact that should have or he has already filed a number of these good-for-
one-year reports in the past means the current task in not unusual or
particularly onerous.
Of course, Dr. Hansen’s Form 17-60 will show all the various
and sundry sources of income he reported on his annual income tax.
Right?
“…Hansen’s outside employment… have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years.”
And all this time I thought he was doing these things on his own time for free because of his love for the planet.
If Hansen is helping to litigate against the Government he is direct violation of his terms of employment. But then, he’s so much a loose cannon that it’s just one more thing that the powers that be will ignore.
Let’s hope that Horner and Co. can get a judgement in a federal court against NASA. If they can, some of NASA’s research funding may be frozen until they have dealt with their obligations under the judgement
It is about time that Hansen was taken to task. I thought it was a Federal offense to do other work outside your Government job. Confiscate his ill gotten gains.
I have just seen the post on Climate depot about this which has a picture of Hansen being arrested. The arresting officer is called Green. So Hansen being arrested by a Green. Poetic Justice at its best.
Perhpas they should also ask Hansen why his temperature anomaly records as far back as 1880 have become lower and more recent anomalies higher.
If I remember right, the amount of money GreenPeace receives from Exxon each year dwarfs the amount of money CEI received from them in total. According to KR, this fact alone means that GreenPeace is nothing but a corporate stooge.
As we all know, GreenPeace played a large part in writing the most recent IPCC report, going so far as to author one whole section.
According to KR logic, this means that the IPCC report is completely discredited and should be ignored by everyone.
Gee, that was fun.
KR says:
June 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Since ATI is connected to the CEI, a known business lobbying group/”think tank”, this has the appearance of businesses attempting to undermine science for purposes of profit. I don’t think anyone would have filed this lawsuit otherwise, and the difference between an honest lawsuit and harassment is motivation.
Maybe to you, but fine, if you want to talk about appearances, NASA GISS’s refusal to provide Hansen’s Form 17-60 appears like stonewalling. What are they trying to hide, and why?
Storms left for grandchildren are happening now.
More storms should be sowed ASAP or there will be gone, a thing of the past, like the snow …..
61.KR says:
“…As to whether or not this could be considered “harassment” – it costs time and money to defend against a lawsuit whether it’s justified or not. Since ATI is connected to the CEI, a known business lobbying group/”think tank”, this has the appearance of businesses attempting to undermine science for purposes of profit. I don’t think anyone would have filed this lawsuit otherwise, and the difference between an honest lawsuit and harassment is motivation…”
Wow. First, define profit. Explain why you don’t consider Hansen’s activities as “profiting” off his Govt title (NASA scientist). Without that title, nobody would talk to him, his protests wouldn’t have that much press, etc.
Second, your statement “…this has the appearance of businesses attempting to undermine science for purposes of profit…”, if rewritten to the following “…this has the appearance of scientists attempting to undermine businesses for purposes of profit…” is closer to the truth. Trying to shut down legal businesses (even if they are coal mines or power plants) because of his BELIEFS, is also harassment.
NASA – Never A Straight Answer
As the civilian face of the Department of Defense since 1958, NASA has plenty of experience to call on.
Don’t forget that Hansen’s “hobby” activities include flying to the UK and (successfully) appearing as an “expert” witness in the defence of Greenie vandals in court:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp
Who paid his air fare and hotel bill? Is it likely that he would have been accepted as an “expert” witness in a UK Court if he’d been working for the Joe Soap Company? No doubt both UK and US governments colluded in this behind the scenes. But who actually picked up the expenses tab? Jolly Jim Hansen or taxpayers?
Anyone like to guess?
There is another, quite separate conflict of interest concerning the work of Dr Hansen that should be investigated.
The NASA GISS temperature record has been more alarmist that HADCRUT or NOAA – and most consistent with Dr Hansen’s alarming predictions of twenty years ago.
Have a look at the website page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
On the right side bar you will see
“Contacts
Please address scientific inquiries about the GISTEMP analysis to Dr. James Hansen.”
I just want to say that after learning of the extra income for Mr. Hansen, that I wholeheartedly believe in global warming. Now how do I get the money?
Why anyone listens to this unethical scientist is beyond me.
He endorsed a book about anarchy called “Times Up!” by Keith Farnish and he admits he never read the book !
“30 December 2008
Keith,
well I do not have time to read it ‐‐ but I would certainly be willing to state that your thesis is correct, something like “Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, the ‘system’ is the problem, and we must force our governments to look out after our interests, rather than the interests of the fossil fuel industry.””
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100325_Clarification.pdf
This is about time. On at least two occasions Hansen has been in the UK appearing as an expert witness to defend eco-anarchists who have attacked power plants. I also seem to recall that he has also appeared with various groups to defend ‘direct action’. I wrote to NASA asking whether he was appearing in these cases with official endorsement and at public expense. The answer I received (quote) was that his own private views are his own!!!! As a former UK Government employee I would not have been able to engage in the activities that Hansen is – it would be considered inappropriate to my role as an advisor to Government