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.
Do you REALLY think ppl are going to click on even _half_ of those links?
Please, and I say this kindly, save the raving nutter act for other venues …
.
And they call this joker a ‘scientist’? Heck, I guess that the guy who cleaned out my credit card account must’ve been a ‘professor’ too.
Jessie says:
November 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“Not sure on the ‘solo sleeping bag’ one there, ….”
Jessie,
When your hunting the back country by yourself, it’s solo hunting, solo cooking, and solo camping. Nobody else around. Just you… and what ever critters live there.
“even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented.”
What? If this isn’t a lie it’s stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard. Who does it apply to? Can we dissolve both houses of congress on this basis? So parking inspectors can’t take a 2nd job or they’re a criminal? Really? Does not sound plausible.
Woops, I read a little further and for your “over a million dollars” story you list over a million dollars in prize money, which you don’t suggest is prohibited.
Apologies for assuming this was a serious post.
Seems this kind of thing is rampant
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/4379-bbcs-mr-climate-change-accepted-p15000-in-grants-from-university-rocked-by-climategate.html
“BBC’s Mr Climate Change Accepted £15,000 In Grants From University Rocked By Climategate ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html
Wow! With this kind of background, it seems like to me he’s now qualified to run for President.
@Hoffer
Engineers advise. Managers decide. In this case the engineers had probably come to be seen like The Boy Who Cried Wolf over those O-rings and management had become inured to the complaints. It was no one’s fault. The space shuttle was the most complex system ever produced by human endeavour. There were a million things that could go wrong on every mission. The amazing thing was how many missions were successful.
You are a finger pointer obviously and probably the worst kind incapable of pointing the finger at himself. Insisting on blaming management probably also means you’re a peon who gets bossed around and resents it. Your attitude suggests you believe you should be the one that’s in charge. Poor DavidMHoffer. The world is so unfair to him.
In fact the managers at NASA in the shuttle program did an extraordinarily good job as did the engineers and the technicians and every other person in the program. They deserve a medal but instead they get mewling finger pointing from weaklings who imagine themselves to be more competent.
Dave Springer wrote:
It’s too long to post here, but you can read what the EPA wrote about the External Tank in Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 221/Thursday, November 15, 2001. The short version:
On the SRBs, not only was the putty changed, but the solvent used to clean the faying surfaces of the segments and the J-flap, and the J-flap adhesive were all changed. The J-flap adhesive used to be “Morestik 132” which contained Trichloroethylene (ethane?), and they changed that to water-based “Morestik 227”. In 1995 the “Trike” was replaced with “REVILLE CLEANER, FORUMLA #02191” and “”CLEANER, ORGANIC WITH D-LIMONINE” per “MSFC-SPEC-2490”. Atlantis had to be de-stacked in that same year because these new solvents and adhesives were suspect. In my opinion, NASA put political correctness over the safety the astronauts by changing all these tried-and-true chemicals without proper testing.
Him says:
November 20, 2011 at 1:48 am
>>even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented.”
“What? If this isn’t a lie it’s stupidest complaint I’ve ever heard. Who does it apply to? Can we dissolve both houses of congress on this basis? So parking inspectors can’t take a 2nd job or they’re a criminal? Really? Does not sound plausible.”
Whether it sounds plausible to you or not is, of course, of no consequence. It remains the law of the land regardless. The following specifically and much more surrounding it may help you understand what the law does and does not allow.
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics/generalf.htm#42
Personally I don’t understand how “prizes” escape being defined as compensation. Money changing hands is money changing hands no matter what you call it. Honoraria are even more within the definition of compensation. But the law is abundantly clear on receiving travel expenses and it would appear that Hansen has been caught red-handed accepting those and failed to report them.
Any questions?
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/11/stupid-math-tricks.html
Regarding the shuttle, sounds like the EPA did not broaden the exceptions to their guidelines (Laws) as the engineers wished, and management ignored the warnings.
Mr Watts
On how bad African GISS stations / records
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/giss-and-their-african-temperatures/
Dave Springer;
You are a finger pointer obviously and probably the worst kind incapable of pointing the finger at himself. Insisting on blaming management probably also means you’re a peon who gets bossed around and resents it.>>>
Yes, with your megabrain intelligence you are capable of making a psychological assessment of me based on my views of the root cause of the shuttle disaster. Well I’m sorry to advise that I’ve spend most of my career in management. I’ve learned that when the people below me warn me about something, I had best listen and make 100% certain I understand why. I might over rule them based on business issues, but NEVER on technical issues. The biggest mistake any manager can make is called “shoot the messenger”. After a while, no more messengers show up and management becomes content that everything is fine when actually everything is off the rails and no one wants to say so because they will get shot. “Ignore the messenger” is nearly as bad.
The failure of management in the case of the shuttle disaster is as classic a failure of management to listen to the expertise as one can find. The witch hunt that followed was exactly that; People in power looking for someone to blame. It happens every day in large organizations and in small ones when things go off the rails and incompetant managers proceed to cover their butts rather than admit their mistakes. Bad managers fix the blame. Good managers fix the problem. Excellent managers fix what caused the problem.
In this case the problem was management. That you blindly defend management ad nauseum while attempting to point the finger at my personal role in life and my personal psychology suggests far more about you than it does about me. I feel rather sorry for the peons who had to report to your megabrain management skills.
You have cheered me up immensely, Thankyou! Now can you give us some indication that someone, somewhere, is actually pursuing such an investigation. In other words: What has made you so optimistic that justice will be done?! GK
Ooh, just a second: The list of prizes and honoraria is indeed impressive, and probably painful for anyone who disagrees with Hansen’s outspoken scientific conclusions. It appears, however, that the totality of his transgressions are one unreported (but very expensive) watch and two honoraria from talks that improperly advertised his NASA employment. Nowhere is it stated that each of the impressive list of other prizes was not reported, and the instructions for form SF278 (you can Google it; I did) say, ‘The term “honoraria” means payments of money or anything of value to you or your spouse for an appearance, speech, or article, excluding necessary travel expenses. See 5 CFR Part 2636.’ — so he didn’t need to report the “reimbursable” travel, as long as it was approved beforehand by his management.
I don’t suggest he should be excused for those three transgressions, but given the length of the list, a few mistakes may just be human. Indeed, if he didn’t know in advance how those two talks were advertised, his transgression was in not immediately returning the honoraria when he found out, not in accepting the offer originally when he (supposition on my part) might have thought there would be no such advertising.
Before you demonize your opponents, try out the simplest explanations. They may or may not be right, but you can’t exclude them until you prove otherwise.
It’s all part of the larger theme. AGW alarmism is just one progressive tactic among many failing ideas. The out of control nanny state with it’s ever expanding give aways and pandering to every percieved disadvantaged group is unsustainable. It’s a matter of mathmatics not ideology. Meanwhile everyday people who have been going about their lives working hard and doing the right thing are starting to wake up to the fact that despite the feel good rhetoric they’ve been had. Worse yet the stout auserity measures that are enevitably coming are going to very painfully illuminate the prolifergate curruption and cronyism that has squandered our future. Once that soaks in human nature will supply the rest. People facing a future of higher taxes and reduced benifits for the forsee-able future are going to start looking for people to punish. Politicians that want to stay employed are not going to be able simply sweep this under the rug and press on. It’s going to be a very bad environment to be someone who deliberately conflated sketchy science into the biggest scam in human history. There are a whole lot of people (like myself) who are never going to forget the threats, the demonizing, and the outright attacks of the reputations and livelihoods good honest people whose only crime was to insist on integrity in science. We are organizing and educating ourselves on the tactics that the progressives used to such telling effect. We are also going to remember that these attacks came from a small cabal of lying, hypocritical progressive elitist that have becoming fabulously wealthy and attempted to literally take over the world at the expense of good honest people. Many of us will never rest until the world can be assured that these progressive malcontents will never again be in a position to wreck the prosperity of the world and assault the freedoms and liberties we take for granted.
sunman42 says:
November 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“Ooh, just a second: The list of prizes and honoraria is indeed impressive, and probably painful for anyone who disagrees with Hansen’s outspoken scientific conclusions. It appears, however, that the totality of his transgressions are one unreported (but very expensive) watch and two honoraria from talks that improperly advertised his NASA employment. Nowhere is it stated that each of the impressive list of other prizes was not reported, and the instructions for form SF278 (you can Google it; I did) say, ‘The term “honoraria” means payments of money or anything of value to you or your spouse for an appearance, speech, or article, excluding necessary travel expenses. See 5 CFR Part 2636.’ — so he didn’t need to report the “reimbursable” travel, as long as it was approved beforehand by his management.”
Ooh. Just a second. NASA refused the FOIA request to provide documentation of what Hansen did and did not report. So we don’t know what he reported and what he didn’t. ATI is suing to get the information. NASA is stonewalling.
One might wonder why NASA refused the request. I know I wonder why. This is exactly the kind of thing the FOIA was meant to cure – public servants abusing the public trust. If Hansen filled out all the proper paperwork and got approval then he’s likely off teh hook but someone’s ass is still grass because those prizes, gifts, and travel expenses are clearly both compensatory in nature and forbidden by ethics laws. Someone is going down for it. If not Hansen then whoever approved it. These are outrageous ethics violations.
Since Hansen’s violations are so flagrant and obvious and he hasn’t been fired yet, there must be some degree of complicity at the Director level at his employer. Sounds like it’s high time for a good old fashioned ‘follow the money’ inquiry to root out corruption at NASA.
davidmhoffer says:
November 20, 2011 at 8:13 am
“Yes, with your megabrain intelligence you are capable of making a psychological assessment of me”
Correct.
” Well I’m sorry”
Obviously.
“to advise that I’ve spend most of my career in management.”
It’s painfully obvious you aren’t a scientist or engineer. Managers have managers. Teh point still stands.
Shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
[ yeah, as if ]
Dave Springer;
Frankly, this is getting tiresome. Are you a man or a child? If you disagree with my arguments, then by all means, do so. Argue the facts, argue the logic. But if all you’ve got to bring to the table is insults, disgusting personal attacks and sarcasm, then of what use are you? You are nothiong but a bully, albeit a very intelligent one, who, when backed into a corner for having mouthed off about some opinion that he can’t defend, resorts to angrily attacking through ad hominems and actiing like a spoiled brat who, when he cannot have his way, throws a tantrum.
You’ve made some very good points in multiple threads about science. It is unfortunate that your irrational and adversarial response to those you do not like or with opinions with which you disagree discredits you. You suffer from one of the most common problems that highly intelligent people have, which is that they grow over confident in their own abilities, and assume that when somebody disagrees with them, that the default reason is that the other person is wrong.
Argue your position like a rational adult, or STFU.
Olen says:
November 19, 2011 at 8:19 am
The leadership in NASA is contributing to Hansen’s activism by not enforcing the law and NASA policy. In doing so they are denigrating the good name of NASA.
One can bet that Jimmie “Death Trains” Hansen has never been shy about pointing out to his would be superiors at NASA that he has some big friends in very high places, Gore, DNC, IPCC, 60 Minutes, ABC, NBC, the Kerry’s. the Kennedys, etc, etc… It’s doubtful that any aministrator wants any of that action.
As a former, long time and proud NASA employee I am concerned that Hansen’s actions and NASA’s lack of action is putting NASA’s credibility at risk. NASA should (1) Require that Hansen’s work be peer reviewed for honesty and integrity, (2) make public any of Hansen’s findings that are found to be biased (or not honest), and (3) Require that Hansen abide by the law and NASA ethics, as all NASA employees should and most do.
An honest assessment and determination of the effects of man produced CO2 on climate change is important to everyone on earth.
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm
In response to: California Angel says: November 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Look darling, you’ve just snorted some strong stuff. It’ll take a while and perhaps some cold turkey to come down from all that fantasy-science. But in the long run it’s not good for you. Truth matters for your health. Believe me because I’ve been there myself and so have lots of us here. In your own time, read my own story, learn how to check evidence. Click my name. Hang in here, and listen.”
Lucy,
Your witty but measured response to ‘California Angel’ tickled and intrigued me! I tagged your name to visit your website, something I had not done previously.
Kiddoo – Your website is a 12 Step Program for Recovering Warmists!!! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your progression from casual acceptance of the AGW meme, through a questioning search to understand increasingly glaring inconsistencies in the AGW debate, to a really well informed, mature, and entertaining educator of why the AGW hypothesis is unsupportable!!! Your storyline presentation is soooooo good, detailing your path to enlightenment with relevant links to supporting science at every nuanced turn. It is ‘readable’ at a mid high school comprehension level, yet provides links to the higher level analyses supporting your conclusions for the more advanced readers. You build your case ‘brick by brick’, with each set in high strength analytical ‘mortar’ before proceeding to the next. The end result is an enduring edifice, built on a solid foundation and rising to the unshakable conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is not supported by available data or analyses. Bravo! Encore! Ole! You should be awarded both ears and the tail from the AGW bull you so effectively challenged, gently but repeatedly skewered, and thoroughly dismantled!
Your path to informed understanding is indeed similar to my own and many others. Thanks for the link, as I had been searching for a site that provided such a logical and easily readable story line progression of why the AGW hypothesis is falsified, with the supporting data appropriately sequenced. With your permission, I will direct others questioning the AGW meme to your site, just as I routinely do for WUWT.