It seems esteemed NASA astronomer turned climatologist turned paid activist Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not been reporting some income that he is required by law to do. How long will NASA continue to look the other way? Chris Horner explains. – Anthony
A Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File
By Christopher Horner
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.
This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.
Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.
Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee. This is despite NASA ordering him to return at least some of the money, with the rest apparently unnoticed by NASA. This raises troubling issues about Hansen’s, and NASA’s, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for doing his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.
The following summarizes records produced by the Department of Justice to resolve litigation against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the required financial disclosures Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
These records are his applications for outside employment or other activity (form 17-60), approvals and accompanying documents, and public financial disclosure (form SF 278).
As detailed in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit which yielded these records, Hansen suddenly became the recipient of many, often lucrative offers of outside employment and awards after he escalated his political activism — using his NASA position as a platform, and springboard. This began with a strident “60 Minutes” interview in early 2006, alleging political interference by the Bush administration in climate science.
Hansen acknowledged this timing on his website, noting that first he was offered an award of “a moderate amount of cash– $10,000″ by an outside activist group. He claims to have turned this down because of the nominating process (without elaborating what that meant), and because of the impropriety of appearing to be financially rewarded for his outspokenness (“I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship [sic] for the sake of the $”).
Given that Hansen makes no bones about his (often outrageous) outspokenness and activism being, in his view, part of his job, this surely is also another way of saying it would look as if he were having his NASA salary supplemented by appreciative activists and others. That would violate the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 209.
Yet, as the offers soon became larger, Hansen changed his mind.
The records reveal that NASA initially was very direct in warning Hansen of his responsibilities and prohibitions relating to these activities, which covered the subject of his public employment. Later, after Hansen gained much media attention and condemnation of his NASA superiors for (falsely) claiming he had been “muzzled” (the second president named Bush he claimed had muzzled him), certain clear restatements of the law were dropped from the approval letters responding to his applications for outside employment.
NASA oversight of Hansen’s compliance with ethics-related reporting requirements similarly waned. At no point did they seek reconciliation of his serially conflicting attestations detailed here.
Improper Receipt of Outside Income Without Obtaining Advance Permission
Hansen’s 2009 speech at Dartmouth University for a $5,000 honorarium and up to $1,000 in expenses came in violation of the clear rule against promoting his appearances as, or emphasizing his job with, NASA. It also had not been approved. NASA’s Deputy Chief Counsel Laura Giza, after admonishing these violations, demanded he return the improperly obtained money:
“[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.
“Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”
If there were further correspondence about this demand it would be in NASA’s document production, but there are no such records. The only lawful scenario, therefore, is that Hansen quietly agreed to the demand, but did not inform NASA whether he complied. Otherwise, NASA, Hansen, or both have violated the ethics and/or transparency statutes and regulation.
Yet subsequent financial disclosure forms show Hansen attesting to accepting even more money, between $5,001 and $15,000, for a 2008 speech at Illinois Wesleyan University for which his file, according to NASA, contains no request for permission to engage in this outside employment, or approval to do so (each a condition precedent to lawfully engage in the activity, and to accepting the money).
There is no correspondence about these two glaring discrepancies in his filings reflecting more apparently improperly accepted outside income than most federal employees will ever see in their careers.
In order to continue his employment Hansen would therefore be required to bring himself back in compliance with the ethics rules by returning the money, between somewhere more than $10,000, and $26,000.
Although Hansen reported the income from both honoraria, he did not report receipt of travel expenses for him to get there. This omission is a pattern in his filings, to the tune of surely tens of thousands of dollars for airfare, meals and lodging to locations all around the country and Europe, all required by ethics laws to be reported.
For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):
- Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
- Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
- Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
- WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
- Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
- Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
- FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
- ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
- Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
- Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
- UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
- Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
- Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
- EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
- California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
- CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007
The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:
Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club “No Coal” campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT
Other travel apparently accepted but not reported, to provide expert testimony including on cases involving federal policy:
California (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon), Vermont (Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth etc v. Torti)
Failing to Report Gifts
World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, which typically run $8,000 and up (2006), but which was not reported by Hansen on his SF 278 under “gifts”, which must be reported if valued at more than $260.
Failure to Report Receipt of Free Legal Services
On his website Hansen said he began accepting free legal services in 2006. These are not reported on his financial disclosures, as they should be.
Also, NASA’s document production shows him attesting to receiving more, separate free legal services in the form of an amicus brief drafted for he and a few others to intervene before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. This was not reported on his SF278, as required.
These lapses on both Hansen’s part and NASA demand scrutiny to determine how laws designed to protect the taxpayer are, or are not, being respected.
###
This story has been updated to correct some small errors and formatting issues@ 8:15AM and 9:50AM PST 11/19/11
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does the term “conflict of interest” carry any weight whatsoever in US institutions? From what I have seen of the many cases such as this I can only assume it has no bearing over the pond.
California Angel
What evidence can you provide that present day catastrophic weather events are any worse than catastropic weather events of the past?
Tonyb
LazyTeenager says:
November 19, 2011 at 4:35 am
“So here is a tip. Look once, twice and thrice if someone tells you something you want to believe in.”
Kettles and pots?
Hansen takes a lot of aeroplane flights. Just think of all that CO2. Has the man no shame?
California Angel says: November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
Gordon Bennet.
LazyTeenager says:
Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information.
Not at all unusual. Lots of scandals takes a long time to uncover, even when the information is technically visible. I say “technically” because it is only visible if you know where to look.
Donna Laframboise has an awesome job digging up all the silliness in the IPCC from public sources mostly, but it wasn’t easy.
Or consider the Penn State scandal now raging. That first came to light six months ago, and has taken until now to build up so that something is done about it.
=========================================================================
The key thing is that instead of the sceptics being bank-rolled by Big Oil, it is the alarmists being bankrolled by Big Green.
I wonder if Rattus, Lazy, Barry and JPY go onto alarmist sites and demand proof whenever allegations of sceptics being funded covertly are raised? (Actually I don’t wonder, we know how those trolls work.)
I’m laughing at the watermelons trying to defend this shill. To those claiming it’s not much money (like Paulino) that’s over 300k a year extra. Many would like to live on that.
EFS_Junior says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Thanks EFS. I happen to know someone who is being bludgeoned by barratry as we speak. First definition. Funny that you would post that.
California Angel says:
November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
Oh noes! Save the children!
Seriously? And you’re still using a computer? Do you really believe what you typed? Or do you feel that switching to twisty bulbs is enough of a tithe to your religion that no more is required of you?
Anyone who seriously believes CO2 is a threat and hasn’t forgone ALL modern conveniences (including houses and clothing) is, put simply, a hypocrite. Why should the rest of us worry about something you don’t really believe in?
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Here’s one of the most detailed and well documented accounts of what happened that I’ve seen:
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm”
If you even read it you certainly didn’t understand it. Engineers had been objecting to every shuttle launch because of those O-rings which were getting seriously eroded on half of all launches. There was a history of ECOs (engineering change orders) to fix the problem and the last of these hadn’t been implimented yet. A perfect storm of events took out the Challenger. The O-rings failed to seat properly and at 0.06 seconds after ignition the putty which protected the O-rings from the high exhaust temperature fractured and collapsed. Normally the putty had air pressure between it and the O-ring to keep it from collapsing but the failure to seal meant there was no air pressure. In warmer conditions when these O-rings didn’t seat properly (they had problems all along) the putty was more pliable and flowed into the seal but in this cold temperature the putty was stiff and instead fractured.
Still that wasn’t the primary cause of mission failure because by 0.08 seconds after ignition smoke leaking past the seal cauterized it closed and everything was fine again. This is why those O-rings were getting eroded (read burned) on about half of all shuttle launches prior to Challenger yet there were no mission failures because of them. So the cold wasn’t the primary cause of the mission failure and the engineer warnings about the O-rings had a long history that didn’t begin with the Challenger mission. The only thing different about Challenger was they didn’t have any empirical data on O-ring performance at temperatures this low and the worst O-ring damage they’d seen up until then happened to be at the lowest launch temperature up until that time (53F) and this temperature was considerably lower. The engineers also objected because of ice buildup which they said could break off and damage the shuttle’s heat shield. They were right about that too as foam flaking off the external fuel tank, something else that happened on most shuttle missions, is what caused the Columbia to break up on re-entry. But I digress.
The straw that broke that camel’s back for Columbia was wind shear at 59 seconds into the flight. It was the worst wind shear ever experienced by a shuttle solid rocket booster and the stress caused the cauterized closure of the O-ring to break open. The cauterized closure, you see, was brittle. An intact rubber O-ring would have yielded and remained sealed. Flames then licked out through the O-ring and after 40 seconds burned a hole through the shuttle’s external fuel tank and the rest is history.
So it was really wind shear that was the problem. Those O-rings had a history of failure, that history was well known, but it had never caused a problem before. It was just an unlucky day where the combination of a failed O-ring and extreme wind sheer at high altitude 60 seconds after launch brought it down. You can try blaming a lot of things but the truth is that wind shear was the unique thing that day that caused the catastrophic failure. The uniquely low temperature was maybe and maybe not a contributing factor because those O-rings were failing on 50% of launches regardless of the outside temperature. In all past failures the joint sealed itself from exhaust smoke pouring through the smoke and this launch was no exception. The exception in this launch was high wind shear breaking the annealed closure of the joint.
Got it? Write that down.
Oops – I meant “the straw that broke the camel’s back for Challenger was wind shear” in my last, not Columbia.
LazyTeenager says:
November 19, 2011 at 4:35 am
“Don’t you guys think it just a little strange that all these accusations and insinuations of criminal conduct by Chris Horner are all based on PUBLIC or DISCLOSED information.”
Lazy, the only thing that exceeds your inability to think is your inability to read. The beginning of the article states…”NASA records released to resolve LITIGATION filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal…”
EFS_Junior says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“Note, this is a major backfire for the ATI, specifically because of ATI’s frivolous harassment, I’d expect Hansen to collect even more cash prizes, even more travel expenses (which he won’t report, in your face ATI), even more speaking engagements, even more Rolex watches, even more gold, and even more diamonds.”
This and barratry presumes that the ATI suit is both frivolous and repetitive. It’s prima facie neither of those. The litigation is over the refusal of NASA to release information under FOIA requirments. The refusal is a matter of fact and constitutes just cause of action. The refusal may be upheld but the litigation itself is certainly not frivolous. So much for the frivolous claim.
In regard to barratry there would have to be repetition involved. ATI has not filed any other suits against NASA and I’m not sure that WUWT inspired any lawsuits. I would recommend anyone thinking about filing a frivolous lawsuit against WUWT is what the result of a winning countersuit would entail because that would almost certainly be the outcome. The ACLU would jump on this in a heartbeat. The day when a blog can’t call for the investigation of a public servant for potential ethics or criminal violations is the day when freedom of speech and freedom of the press is dead in the United States of America. I wonder how the mainstream media would feel about that kind of precedent being set? Evidently you would have no problem with it. You a member of the communist party or something?
Mac the Knife@12.59pm
“When the coyotes howling in one canyon and the wolves howling from another disturb our solo sleeping bag slumber on a hard freeze, back country night, we know a joy that can only come from ‘being there’!”
Not sure on the ‘solo sleeping bag’ one there, but hey, different strokes for different folks. Rest of what you wrote was inspiring, thank you. And very interesting.
PS How are the 2012 calendars for hot miners coming along? 🙂
David Ball says:
November 19, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Thanks EFS. I happen to know someone who is being bludgeoned by barratry as we speak. First definition. Funny that you would post that.”
Are you related to Tim Ball?
Canada has gotten really weird in the past 10 years about censoring free speech. Just about anything can be classified as hate speech. We’re still pretty free to hate whoever we want in the U.S.
California Angel says:
November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains!!
In the meantime, millions starve from food shortages caused by….. Wouldn’t it be smarter to heed the science and be smart people who get together to clean up this mess we have made?
__________________________________
I and may other farmers around the world have been paying attention to this issue for several years. Climate is not the real threat. Global warming is the DISTRACTION used by the magicians who are stealing us blind. I really hope you at least skim these articles to get you up to speed on what is actually going on.
The biggest environmental organization in the world with an annual revenue of over 100 million dollars is controlled by investment bankers, the organizations that will make billions from global warming. http://edf.org/documents/8857_AR08_Financial_Comment.pdf
The bankers own the Media
J.P. Morgan & the media:
1917 Congressional record shows Morgan bought the most influential news papers: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/conspiracy1.htm
current: JP Morgan: Our next big media player? http://www.newsandtech.com/dougs_page/article_f3a45be0-4717-11df-aace-001cc4c03286.html
An example of propaganda. The media blames CAGW for the farmer suicides in India. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/food-climate-change-famine-india
However Dr. Vandana Shiva blames the suicides on Globalization, WTO and GMOs => DEBT. http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-shiva050404.htm
THE TRUTH BEHIND FAMINE
A bit of history on corporate/banker manipulation of US farmers since 1942: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
In the European Union: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php
Mexico: http://www.countercurrents.org/mohanty230608.htm
Current world wide: Getting Use To A Life Without Food http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1
Goldman Sachs & 2008 food riots:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html
http://www.seismologik.com/journal/tag/cargill
Do not forget the Ag cartels role: http://www.globalissues.org/article/758/global-food-crisis-2008
And in 2011:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-16/latin-america-africa-most-at-risk-from-riots-as-food-prices-rise-un-says.html
Carbon Trading Tree farms are being planted by the likes of the World Bank on land stolen from peasants. Worse a nasty, invasive, biodiversity unfriendly tree, that even a goat won’t eat is planted. A tree that literally poisons the land. I document the problem in these two comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-754959
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559
EU Carbon Trading Rocked By Mass Killings: http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4009-eu-carbon-trading-rocked-by-mass-killings.html
Farmland Grab:
http://www.businessinsider.com/barton-biggs-stock-a-safe-haven-with-food-and-firearms-to-protect-against-pillagers-2010-1
https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN
http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab
MORE AT: farmlandgrab.org
A Corporation Cartel getting control of the World Food Supply is a heck of a lot more of a problem than “Global Warming” CAGW is just the useful Scape Goat since plants love CO2 and warmth. CO2 even makes plants more drought resistant because their breathing pores (stomata) do not have to be open as much.
Bulldust says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Does the term “conflict of interest” carry any weight whatsoever in US institutions? From what I have seen of the many cases such as this I can only assume it has no bearing over the pond.
_______________________________
The law is only applicable if you are a serf.
Remember the Senator from “Chappaquiddick” http://www.coverups.com/greatcoverups/teddy-chappaquiddick.htm
Dave Springer;
Got it? Write that down.>>>
So in summary, what you are saying is that the o-rings had been failing before, the engineers had been warning that they had been (and would again) and that they were over ridden by management reapetedly? So it was serial stupidity, not a single instance of stupidity?
Do you bother to read what you yourself write?
The straw that broke the camel’s back may well have been wind shear. The bails of straw weighing the camel down were decisions by management to ignore the past history of o-ring failure, ignore the engineers’ warnings, and to launch a system during conditions that were outside both test conditions, and design conditions.
Management decided it was OK, and it wasn’t.
That you can’t understand the bottom line was bad management decisions, is, based on the balance of our discourse, of no surprise to me.
Write that down.
Kisses.
EFS_juinor says “Are you hopping mad yet? Because you all should be, and there isn’t a damn thing you all can do about it either.”
I think we’ll see in 2012 what can be done about it. The thing to do now is continue to allow the AGW alarmism pseudo-science to collapse and continue to gather evidence against those that deliberately and fraudulently skewed the science for their own enrichment. Once the forces of reason are in control of the Senate and the DOJ there will be plenty of time for vigorous prosecutions. Rest assured long after the AGW scare has faded away to the same level of discredited rubbish as the whole pending Ice Age scare many many people like me will be tirelessly pressuring their elected officials to see that Justice is done. Of particular interest are going to be the Alarmists that suppressed honest dissent and attacked anyone with the courage to question the great green gaia religion. Hansen is small potatoes. Most likely he’ll simply be fired and have his pension receded. The real target is the Great Gore-acle himself. If you don’t think there are attorneys right now figuring how to best go after this charlatan on the RICO statute you are sadly mistaken.
John Cooper says:
November 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm
re; EPA restrictions on asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons. Even today you can still purchase CFC propellants for legacy systems and devices with a proper permit. The EPA has no general ban on asbestos either. I seriously doubt it was EPA forcing the changes to the CFC propellents and surface preparation on shuttle external fuel tanks. Such changes would have to have been given a green light by NASA as well and the foam was already a well known mission hazard so I doubt any engineer okayed it unless he was quite confident that it wouldn’t compromise safety even more. Same goes for the asbestos putty in the SRB joints. The replacements were probably just much more expensive but equal or better for the task. For the government cost is no object so as long as it met the specs…
There are delusional caped crusaders on each side of the culture wars. There are those who believe government can’t do anything right and those who believe government can’t do anything wrong. The truth, as usual, is found between the extremes. The information you mention sounds like it’s coming from one of the extremes.
Dear mr. Watts, thank you for a wonderful website. I think there is a small error in the layout.
”
“[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.
Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”
”
I think the second paragraph (beginning with “Also, in the future,,,”) should be a blockquote and in italics like the first.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
Dave Springer says:
November 19, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Dr. Ball is my father. I could not be more fortunate in the parents department ! There are no better examples of good, honest, intelligent, hard working people than me Ma & Pa.
Dave Springer says:
November 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“The uniquely low temperature was maybe and maybe not a contributing factor because those O-rings were failing on 50% of launches regardless of the outside temperature.”
=======
Should I “write that down”.
You are out of your depth, you just don’t know it.
Write that down.
Mooloo@3.50pm
“…Not at all unusual. Lots of scandals takes a long time to uncover, even when the information is technically visible. I say “technically” because it is only visible if you know where to look….”
440 kms of fencing pilfered to fence BOTH sides of the Western Pacific Highway in New South Wales (NSW), Australia!!
Someone might point to a google map on the enormity of this (one example in) herculean endeavour in fencing. Or use Will E’s map of the green Australia.
‘….has admitted to the corruption watchdog he ordered enough mesh to build a fence to line both sides of the road between Sydney and Bathurst, as part of a major fraud racket at a regional NSW council….’
Obviously the fence had not been constructed, nor an argument or scientific rationale developed for fencing, nor a tender constructed nor contractors paid to construct the fence, in this incident.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/storeman-admits-to-major-fraud-racket-over-mesh-for-the-great-western-highway/story-e6frfku0-1226168585774
And Local Government (LG) is asking to be recognised in The Constitution? Because it requires direct funding from the Federal govt for road infrastructure. Their (both Fed & LG) argument being that the States, who receive (and legislate) do not provide adequate re-distribution of the funds to local government.
Here is one example of $ distribution of untied grants to Local Governments.
http://www.regional.gov.au/local/assistance/index.aspx
Australia has quite a history with fences and fencing materials given her small populations and vast distances in agricultural, sheep & cattle station industries. Also we built the rabbit proof fence & the dingo proof fence. More recently the camels have become an industry, but a fence will not stop them!.
We overcame those vast distances and stock problems with controlling water points, then later helicoptors. I think property rights came in there somewhere. And freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Probably the suffragettes helped :>
There are rules in the ethics laws that allow for public employees to receive prizes and get travel reimbursed. However, all the exceptions are going to require the filling of the proper paperwork and clearance from the ethics office for each and every instance to make sure that the travel or prize is allowed under the exceptions and that no attempt to influence a government official is occuring. I have received a prize and paid-for travel in the past (both at a very nominal level), both required a lot of paperwork and pre-activity permission. Gifts are strictly forbidden above the level of free pens and mugs. In my experience the DOD is most strict in this and their managers seldom allow even the minimum exceptions that most government agencies allow. Outside employment is allowed but also requires the filing of paperwork to show it is not work related. You can get a job selling burgers or real estate on the side if you are an engineer but not doing engineering consulting. On the surface Hansen appears to be violation of a lot of the ethics standards. But without seeing what paperwork may have been filed and what letters sent from the ethics lawyers I can not be sure.
If you are concerned send a letter of complaint to the NASA Inspector General, but try to have some specifics in your complaint not just a general statement that you read bad things about Hansen on the internet.
Wally;
If you are concerned send a letter of complaint to the NASA Inspector General, but try to have some specifics in your complaint not just a general statement that you read bad things about Hansen on the internet.>>>
Personaly I don’t really care if he filed the right paperwork or not. The point is that he has made enormous amounts of money by being an alarmist who uses his own work to give credibility to the alarmism that he is being paid to spread outside of NASA. Even if every penny were properly accounted for, the ethical conflict should be obvious.
Do you even know what NASA stands for?
Not About Science Anymore