Hansen rakes it in

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

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

172 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mpaul
October 3, 2011 12:29 pm

@Sean October 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Hmm, that is interesting. Among ‘inside the beltway’ types in Washington, J Street is used as a fictitious designation. J Street is famously absent on the Pierre L’Enfant Washington grid. Also, ‘John Jones’ and ‘123’ seem like the kind of thing that someone would use as a fictitious address. It could be that Hansen put this in as a holding spot intending to dig up the actual information, and then later forgot. Or, maybe he is just being stubborn and refusing to provide the name of the creditor.

Neo
October 3, 2011 12:32 pm

The only “J street: in DC is a nonprofit liberal advocacy group

Paul Deacon
October 3, 2011 12:34 pm

J Bowers says:
October 3, 2011 at 11:56 am
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.
****************
And Robert Ferguson is an employee of which government department?

Frank K.
October 3, 2011 12:39 pm

In my opinion, Hansen (who is 70) should be retired from his six figure government job, permitting him to do what he wants in the private sector. He can, for example, advocate for the destruction of U.S. jobs in industries he doesn’t like (e.g. oil and gas exploration/refinement, coal mining) along with his enviro-activist friends…

D Marshall
October 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:
(note – as this is only a quick, cursory query, I don’t know if all these are current)
1.) Principal Research Scientist at Univ of Ala / Huntsville
2.) Senior scientist at Marshall Space Flight Center
3.) Has testified before Congress
4.) Expert and board member for the George C Marshall Institute
5.) Affiliated with the Heartland Institute
I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”

kim;)
October 3, 2011 12:46 pm

hmmmm…I may be wrong but the J street and name is on the original documents.
Like here. http://armypubs.army.mil/eforms/pdf/S278B.pdf Look at part 1 liabilities [ example ]

October 3, 2011 12:53 pm

J Bowers and D Marshall are conflating scientists who are a voluntarily part of nonprofit organizations with people like James Hansen, who is enriching himself on the taxpayers’ backs while deliberately breaking the law and taking payola. Hansen has turned the formerly scientific NASA/GISS into a climate alarmist blog that flagrantly alters the temperature record to fit its agenda.
James Hansen is guilty of numerous ethics violations, and of repeated unlawful activity. Dr Spencer is not. That’s the difference.

kim;)
October 3, 2011 12:55 pm

Can someone explain to me the difference in some scientist receiving money from say EXXON for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from BP – Shell for research, travel etc?
Or. some scientist funded by say, Koch for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from say, Soros.org for “politicization of science”
http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf [ page 143 ] “politicization of science ($720,000).”?
IMO: Many climate scientists prostituted their cause – way before, so called skeptics.

D.M.
October 3, 2011 12:56 pm

Sean
If you read just to the left of John Jones of 123 J Street, you see the word ‘examples’…

October 3, 2011 12:56 pm

payola |pāˈōlə|
noun
the practice of bribing someone to use their influence or position to promote a particular product or interest : if a record company spends enough money on payola, it can make any record a hit.

Dishman
October 3, 2011 1:12 pm

Reading the form, it appears he lists the actual amounts of the two prizes:
The Sophie Prize, $100k
Blue Planet Prize (Asahi Glass Foundation), $600k

ChE
October 3, 2011 1:14 pm

Can someone explain to me the difference in some scientist receiving money from say EXXON for research, travel etc – and someone receiving money from BP – Shell for research, travel etc?

I’d like to see (maybe it’s out there somewhere) a spreadsheet of known personal gifts from fossil fuel concerns to skeptics v.s. known personal gifts from Big Green to professional alarmists whose day job is climate scientist. Then we can have a separate spreadsheet for research grants. I think Judy Curry showed that the research grants weren’t even close.
It’s kind of hard to do research of any kind without funding.

J Bowers
October 3, 2011 1:22 pm

Smokey — “J Bowers and D Marshall are conflating scientists who are a voluntarily part of nonprofit organizations with people like James Hansen, who is enriching himself on the taxpayers’ backs while deliberately breaking the law and taking payola.”
Smokey, since when was Ferguson a scientist? He used to work on Capitol Hill as a Repub. chief of staff. As for your claim that Hansen’s breaking the law, well, you need to watch out for your own preposterous statements.

October 3, 2011 1:22 pm

D Marshall says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:……….
…..
I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”
======================================================
Sure, follow the money…….. but that’s not the point. James Hansen is a federal employee. He’s the top dog climatologist. His opinions carry official U.S. govt. weight. He’s receiving significant amounts of money for the opinions he expresses outside of what the U.S. pays him.
I don’t mind scientists getting paid for the work that they do. They should be compensated. But advocacy groups shouldn’t be paying our top climatologist 7 figures. If he wants to leave the employ of the federal govt., fine, power to him and I hope him success. Would you think it proper for the Attorney General to receive gifts(in the form of millions of dollars) for particular interpretations of the law?

Billy Liar
October 3, 2011 1:25 pm

mpaul says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm
@Sean October 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The pair of you need to look closely at the form – would it have been clearer that it was an example of how to fill in the form if it was to John Doe?

dixonstalbert
October 3, 2011 1:41 pm

600k ‘prize’ from these guys:
http://www.agc-solar.com/about-agc-solar/profile.html
agc= asahi glass co.
nope, no conflict of interest there.

Sean
October 3, 2011 1:53 pm

I saw the J street group but their mission is Arab/Israel issues. I also saw the J street cafe.
The 10% interest rate declared seems really expensive, and it is surprising European eyes it is an on demand promissory note rather than a fix term loan. Is this common in the USA? If it was house purchase he should look at remorgaging. It dates from 1999, so it is too early for saving the world costs.

mpaul
October 3, 2011 1:58 pm

@Billy Liar
Billy, you’re right — its just an artifact of the form. I guess Hansen just sloppy about these sorts of things.

H.R.
October 3, 2011 2:00 pm

D Marshall says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Is it safe to assume that the skeptic scientists are free from taint? I have to wonder because just a few minutes research on Roy Spencer turns up the following info:
(note – as this is only a quick, cursory query, I don’t know if all these are current)
1.) Principal Research Scientist at Univ of Ala / Huntsville
2.) Senior scientist at Marshall Space Flight Center
3.) Has testified before Congress
4.) Expert and board member for the George C Marshall Institute
5.) Affiliated with the Heartland Institute
I reiterate that “follow the money” is worthwhile and necessary and should be done for ALL who have “skin in the game”

========================================================
You didn’t finish. What was his income outside of his pay as an influential government employee? How much in prizes and speaking honoraria?
I served as a board member for our homeowner’s association without pay and testified before our township government. That was all gratis on my part. Does serving on a board automatically mean one is raking in the bucks?
You need some numbers ($$$) to go with your observations. That would help make (whatever) point you seem to be attempting to make with that list.

Andy
October 3, 2011 2:28 pm

Hugh Pepper,
You are a parody, right?
I hope so, because if you’re not you’re rather misguided – coming onto WUWT to lionise Hansen is one of the daftest things to do.

D Marshall
October 3, 2011 2:36 pm

@HR / Smokey I’ll say it again – Everyone who’s in the game has to come clean. Not all the motivations are financial although that’s probably the main driver. But some may do it simply because they think they’re right, or because of their religious beliefs ( or the lack thereof ) or for fame. Human beings are very capable of being both shallow and complex, sometimes simultaneously.
Also, HR, are you claiming to be a completely neutral, disinterested 3rd party for your homeowner’s association? Would you have acted differently if you were paid?
I don’t have numbers on anyone, pro-AGW or not, but until today Hansen’s weren’t known and that didn’t seem to prevent speculation on his motives.
Let all who play show their cards – affiliations, conflict-of-interest and relevant research, etc.
If the reseachers, speakers, decision makers, politicians want to be taken seriously, they should act openly or STFU.

Frank K.
October 3, 2011 2:38 pm

J Bowers says:
October 3, 2011 at 1:22 pm
As for your claim that Hansens breaking the law, well, you need to watch out for your own preposterous statements.
Ummm….
NASAs Hansen Arrested Outside White House at Pipeline Protest
“James Hansen, head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was arrested outside the White House as he joined protesters in urging President Barack Obama to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s $7 billion pipeline.”

CRS, Dr.P.H.
October 3, 2011 3:14 pm

Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes
Prizes….yup. Our Illinois politicians also win prizes, you may ask any of the ones in prison about it. One governor in the pen, another waiting to be sentenced. Hansen would do very well in Chicago with his knack for scams.

Scipio
October 3, 2011 3:40 pm

***************************************************************************************************************************
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;
***************************************************************************************************************************
I’m kind of confused here. If this information was obtained with the FIA from a form SF 278 which is filed annually why is there a range of numbers and not an exact amount? A 1 million dollar difference between the low and high value seems rather fishy to me.
I’m no fan of Hansen, but this seems a little forced.

Hoser
October 3, 2011 3:41 pm

And what is his objective opinion?
I suspect Will Rogers wouldn’t mind: American has the best scientists money can buy.

Verified by MonsterInsights