Disclosure Obtained by ATI Environmental Law Center Shows the Wealth Keeps Flowing for Dr. James Hansen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
As it waits for the resolution of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit ( http://bit.ly/nnKpxS ) against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which seeks the outside employment permission records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center has received the belatedly filed 2010 public financial disclosure of the renowned director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:
• Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
• Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
• Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities
The travel reporting marked the first time Hansen detailed such “in-kind” benefits, which included apparent first-class travel for him and his wife on trips to Australia, Japan, and Norway. The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years, which he left blank and attested “none” in the space where he is required to report travel expenses taken as part of his outside employment, all in years in which he was busy with numerous paid outside activities of the same sort as he was in 2010.
“Now that Dr. Hansen’s outside income has come under scrutiny, we see a newfound attention to detail on forms where he reports about these sources,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “It also shows that Dr. Hansen continues to enjoy a healthy level of earnings that supplement – and for his curious exploitation of – the taxpayer-funded position he holds.”
As ATI detailed in its current lawsuit against NASA in federal court in Washington, Dr. Hansen admits this income began after he escalated his public – and often political – global warming advocacy, for which outside parties have spectacularly rewarded him.
ATI sued NASA because the agency refuses to make public any forms 17-60 – the application for permission for outside employment – by invoking the Privacy Act and calling their release “a clearly unwarranted violation’ of Hansen’s privacy.” These forms would demonstrate to the public and Congress whether NASA has signed off on Hansen’s lucrative activities, even though they raise serious questions under Ethics in Government Act rules. NASA’s withholding of the 17-60s is improper because Dr. Hansen, like other federal employees of the highest levels of pay and responsibility, waives certain privacy interests as a condition of his employment. Dr. Hansen is required to file the permission forms before most or all of his outside employment activities.
These requirements that cover Dr. Hansen include annual public financial disclosure that is vastly more detailed and personal than the one-page application for permission for outside employment and other activities. This is also true of senior government officials including Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, the President and Vice President.
ATI expects the media will share its curiosity about Dr. Hansen’s records at NASA, considering they have shown similar recent interest in others’ disclosures. For example:
• The Wall Street Journal‘s recent coverage ( http://on.wsj.com/oqypvi ) about Congress members’ public financial disclosures
• The Huffington Post on Thursday reported that some Democrats demand ( http://huff.to/oBI82s ) an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s filings and the propriety of his wife’s income
• The New York Times‘ recently published a (serially corrected) 2700-word piece ( http://nyti.ms/pbIpcC ) that highlighted how public servants are “restricted from using their positions ‘for personal gain’ or on matters in which they have a direct financial interest,” and how they “must avoid outside work that can pose a ‘time conflict,’ and ‘detract from [the employee’s] full time and attention to his official duties,’” as those rules “were designed to promote the notion of a full-time [employee].”
“That Dr. Hansen very well may be the country’s first millionaire bureaucrat — thanks to this flood of outside income since 2006 all clearly related to his public employment – raises similar questions,” Horner said. “Given his high profile and the significant role attributed to him in the climate debate, his and NASA’s own record on this front should generate at least as much interest.”
See Dr. James Hansen’s 2010 SF 278 disclosure form here: http://bit.ly/oVJX1e
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its the work that demonstrates the extraordinary poverty of his thinking. And he’s making lots of money from it.
He’s also making lots of money for financial speculators like George Soros and Jeremy Grantham who trade on volatility. Millions.
johanna,
The laws and regulations protecting the public from corruption by appointed officials are being enforced to the same extent as the laws against illegal immigration.
•
Mikael, Elmer Gantry was a famous American con artist described in a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Credulous people believed him when he said he could make it rain. Just like credulous people believe James Hansen’s doomsday predictions.
Hugh Pepper says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:01 am
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. “By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.”
_______________________________________________________________________________ Yeah Hugh, nobody has ever won a prize he isn’t deserving of.
Mikael Pihlström says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:20 am
“It’s the American way, no? Work hard and you deserve your wealth?”
Absolutely! That’s one reason why I love my country.
“Besides, being awarded prizes is kind of out of his control?”
He could donate his prize money to worthy charity. He can also refuse prizes if they would result in the appearance of a conflict of interest. Apparently he’s not concerned about that.
“If his contributions will result in avoiding or alleviating effects of future climate catastrophes, it is money well spent, methinks.”
OK. I have a recipe for a special herbal potion that, when its vapors are introduced into the atmosphere, has the power to alleviate the effects of future climate catastrophes (we can make this assessment in, say, 2060). If the government gives me a million dollars, I can cook some up. It would be money well-spent, methinks.
If Hansen, Gore etc. were not getting paid, would they still be interested in saving the world?
Good for James Hansen. Pay him more, I say; he’s worth every dime.
I hope the money was worth it Dr Hansen because history willl last a lot longer than the money.
Smokey says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:45 am
Mikael, Elmer Gantry was a famous American con artist described in a novel by Sinclair Lewis. Credulous people believed him when he said he could make it rain. Just like credulous people believe James Hansen’s doomsday predictions.
OK, I started reading ‘Main Street’ long ago, but never finished it. Let’s reel back to the
80’s and look at the con artist ‘prediction’.
Hansen made a model … and compared to the relevant scenario B of his model actual
temperatures are now lagging somewhat, but there is a clear rising trend.
What was the skeptic ‘prediction’ back then and long after? A flat line with natural
fluctuation. Hansen 1-0.
But, the important lesson is that by doing we can actually learn. It is now widely
held in Climate science that the sensitivity factor he used was to high. Science benefits
from Hansen’s early model; Hansen’s work benefits from re-evaluation. This is how it
should function. The skeptic approach of barking at everything identified as AGW is
not achieving anything.
“The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years…”
Don’t be silly. He just gradually lowered the numbers on past forms like he does with past temperatures. If the scientific community doesn’t question Hansen’s ability to reduce temperatures from 80 years ago, why should they question his ability to reduce the amounts on his financial forms? Hmm, I wonder if he also refiles his income taxes with lower income amounts every year so he can get a refund. But don’t try this at home boys and girls. Only a god like Dr. Hansen can change the past.
This helps demonstrate the principal problem experienced by the leaders of the alarmist cult in that they all have conflicts of interest. The survival of their comfortable lifestyles depends on distortions and lies, hence they have to distort facts and tell lies to survive.
Tell the science the way it is and you get a boring answer, no need for any alarm or any further need for ‘climate scientists’.
Therefore, you have to distort the science to achieve an interesting answer, thereby achieving alarm and future funding for ‘climate science’..
Cynical? Look at the evidence provided by Gore, Hansen, Mann et alia.
Trying to find a ‘climate scientist’ without this fundamental conflict of interest is totally impossible.
Hugh Pepper,
“By demonizing him, you deny your readers and corespondents the opportunity to benefit from the richness of his work.”
The richness of his work? That’s rich!
Hansen has truly jumped on the green gravy train!
“Sorry, don’t know any E. Gantry. He posts a WUWT?”
A fictional character played by the late Burt Lancaster in a movie. Elmer was a fire ‘n brimstone preacher whose life was a complete hypocricy.
Hugh Pepper says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:01 am
It seems to go unnoticed or unacknowledged that the vast majority of Dr. Hansen’s income is in the form of prizes ($150k to 1,250k).
========================================================
Hugh, I believe that was quoted in the story, and this (forgive the wording) is what is most alarming to me. He’s getting paid 7 figures for his advocacy. In the real world, we call this graft. Worse, he’s presenting his advocacy from the office of his paid position.
Another thought, too….His work product is ours, not his.
Doug Proctor said on October 3, 2011 at 8:19 am:
“…Does money talk or call?”
No, Doug, according to Bob Dylan, ‘Money doesn’t talk, it swears’. (‘It’s Alright Ma – I’m Only Bleeding’ 1964)
J Bowers,
You forgot the “end sarcasm” tag: /sarc
Not big oil money then, but big alarmist money.
Frighten the peasants to make them pay up seems to be the approach, nothing changes does it?
Is there a typo?
“Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches”
Should read
“Between $26,008 and $72,500 for hysteria speeches”
Jit says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:18 am
@ur momisugly various commenters
“I can’t prove he’s wrong, but I can prove he’s bad, so you shouldn’t believe him.”
I don’t like it when the other side play this card “Dr Z is in the pay of Big Oil… therefore you can assume he/she is lying.”
Rise above, prove argument wrong.
=============================================
Jit, that isn’t the point. It isn’t about whether he’s wrong or right. (He’s been demonstrably wrong for quite some time.) It is rather, should entities be able to “gift” certain federal employees for the various positions they take on certain issues. Should a policeman receive gifts for doing his job in a certain manner? Should a politician receive gifts for the laws they pass? (No, but it is acknowledged that it does occur.) Or a judge in the way laws are interpreted? How then would Hansen’s gifts be any different. The discussion would be entirely different if he weren’t a federal employee. But he is one. And his testimony to congress has been fairly influential.
He should take his accolades and monetary gifts into the private sector. Or, he should be a federal employee, but he shouldn’t attempt to do both.
Mikael Pihlström says:
October 3, 2011 at 11:03 am
…………..The skeptic approach of barking at everything identified as AGW is
not achieving anything.
======================================================
Uhmm, no. We’ve accomplished much. In fact, the sensitivity factor would probably have not been addressed if skeptics hadn’t barked. Further your 1-0 seems a bit off. Hansen’s paper held for about 10-12 years……. for the next 10-12 years it fell apart.
You think the hockey stick wouldn’t still be prominent were it not for the work of skeptics? Or investigation into clouds and their role? Or even acknowledgement of UHI? Or solar variations? Or glacial melt, or penguins, or the Amazon, or………. the skeptic approach has achieved much. The skeptic approach most importantly has stopped or at least slowed the world’s descent into the Malthusian totalitarian misanthropist abyss.
Smokey, I forgot nothing.
You’re just as welcome to say that Robert Ferguson of SPPI is worth every dime of the $300,000+ he was paid by tax exempt Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change the other year. Not bad going for a guy running a nonprofit with an address at a Virginia UPS Store.
A picture comes to mind.
A fat pig at the public trough!
J Bowers,
Hey, I was just making fun of your preposterous statement.☺
Looking at the Hansen SF278 declaration linked above, there is an entry which is real strange. Section I,
Hansen appears to have a loan outstanding of between 250K and 500K, payable “on demand” to a John Jones of 123 J street Washington DC. I took this to be an address but I can not find J street in Washington. That is a lot of money to come up with “On Demand”.
Sorry… gasp… I can’t seem to… spit, snorgle… stop vomiting… gasp! GK