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
“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 decision that was made was malignantly negligent enough someone should have done prison for it.
While hindsight is 20/20, it was the correct foresight of the engineers that was ignored.
Amazing! He hides the Rolex just like the decline – in full public view!
NASA scientist wins WWF conservation medal
Posted on 21 November 2006 | 0 comments
Gland, Switzerland – Renowned climate scientist Dr James Hansen is this year’s recipient of the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal, awarded annually by WWF for outstanding service to the environment.
[snip. Nice to see you’re reading, but your ban has not been lifted. ~dbs, mod.]
Horner accuses Hansen of receiving $1.2 million in outside income for work done as a federal employee. He does not note in the commentary (though it is stated in the lawsuit), that most of these monies were for international prize awards which, like a Nobel Prize, can be accepted by federal employees and do not count as ‘outside activity’ for which permission must be sought. The relevent federal ethics guidelines are quite explicit (see part d.1, and example 1). The four prizes in question (the Blue Planet Prize $550,000, the Heinz award $250,000, the Dan David award ($333,000?) and the Sophie Prize, $100,000) are all examples of an
… award … made as part of an established program of recognition:
(i) Under which awards have been made on a regular basis or which is funded, wholly or in part, to ensure its continuation on a regular basis; and
(ii) Under which selection of award recipients is made pursuant to written standards.
for which no prior permission is required.
Thus the insinuation that Hansen might not have complied with ethics guidelines by not filing ‘Outside activity’ forms for these prizes (which are not required) is clearly misleading (forms would have been required for speaking engagements and the like which apparently total to only $48,000 over 4 years).
Similarly, the claim in the lawsuit that Hansen received $720,000 from George Soros is simply fictitious.
Tenney Naumer;
Nice try. In terms of the CAGW debate, the point is that Hansen is reaping huge financial rewards from his alarmism. His alarmism is based on his scientific results. If you cannot see the moral and ethical conflict that results, then you are welcome to continue sniping on about the fine points of law.
For those of us who live in the real world, if you want someone to issue a press release saying they’ve studied the sky and it isn’t blue after all, but pink with wavy purple stripes and brown polka dots, you can get it done for a lot less than a million bucks.
For a lawyer this is outstandingly twisted:
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.
==========
see my post above
– the watch was part of the award “awarded annually by WWF for outstanding service to the environment.”
It is NOT a gift it is an AWARD just like the monetary awards.
An email recently sent out where I work:
Laboratory employees should not accept gifts from customers, suppliers, or vendors. Perishable food items such as tins of popcorn, boxes of candy, or cookies should be graciously discouraged, but need not be returned if they are of nominal value and can be shared by a Group, Division, or Directorate. Promotional items (i.e. hats, pens or paperweights with a company logo on them) may be accepted only if they are of nominal value and are not intended to influence your judgment. Items other than food or promotional items should be returned with an apologetic thank you note stating that company policy does not permit employees to accept such gifts. For additional guidance, please refer to the sections on Transactions and Interactions with Nongovernmental Employees and Relationships with Government Personnel contained in PD801, Standards of Conduct and Business Ethics, and P722 Kickback Prohibitions. We define nominal value as an unsolicited gift with a market value of $20 or less per occasion, aggregating to no more than $50 in a calendar year.
Employees must use their best judgment and seek supervisory approval prior to accepting any supplier invitations to open houses or supplier-sponsored holiday events. Perception must always be considered in these situations. Clearly lavish or extravagant events must be avoided.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
I prefer to rely on 98% of the world’s climate scientists for their take on global warming and what causes it.
Tenney Naumer,
You’re writing nonsense. I challenge you to name the “98% of the world’s climate scientists”.
Name them, or lose any remaining credibility.
When I was a “little people” GS-11 Metrologist for the US Navy, I couldn’t even let Hewlett-Packard or Tektronix buy me lunch!
Justa Joe says:
November 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
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.
=============================================
I don’t know if Gail has already given this page on Maurice Strong background, but connection to Gore is connection to Maurice Strong, very interesting background precis and an interview with him: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2605maurice_strong.html
And this from a page which carries a cap and trade & Strong from a 1972 Beeb interview, the twenty year anniversary of the Copenhagen beginning held in Rio:
““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992
http://www.infowars.com/maurice-strong-in-1972-isnt-it-our-responsibility-to-collapse-industrial-societies/
Hansen has been at this game for a long time, I think it was in the seventies when he took his position anti-coal, then the scare put about was that pollution from coal would block out the Sun and bring on the next glacial.. Forty years of practice manipulating stories. I think their could be direct to Rockefellers link from that, don’t know, but he must have some serious backing to get away with saying what he has about it.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Rockefeller_family_aides_anti-coal_movement_twice
But, who’d know it to listen to Jay Rockefeller? http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/06/18/west-virginia-sen-jay-rockefeller-coal-and-climate-change-the-facts-are-already-changing/
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Stong_Gore_Cashing_In
A fascinating read. The Gore and Strong duo scam artistes milking goverment for subsidies for junk technology and manipulating stock markets in 1995
Tenney Naumer says:
November 21, 2011 at 9:24 am
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
I prefer to rely on 98% of the world’s climate scientists for their take on global warming and what causes it.>>>
The 98% quote is fiction. It was a study done in such a manner as to exclude anyone with a contrary opinion in the first place. Just like the studies you see that are carefully contrived to be half truths. Dig into them, and you will discover, as I and anyone else who takes the time to investigate for themselves has, that the studies are without credibility. They are a fiction, just as your 98% number is.
But believe what you will. The “majority” of scientists were quite certain that the only way to cure disease was to let the blood out of you. They claimed to be in the majority, but it was a sham all along and even the blood letters knew they were full of BS. The “majority” used to diagnose you through the bumps on your skull. The “majority” used to stop volcanoes from erupting by throwing virgins into them.
Stop being a follower. Think for yourself. Either that, or cease being a shill for some interest group.
@davidmhoffer, I am a shill for no one. I read voluminously on the subject. Some of what I read I repost on my blog (click on my name) — there are now more than 5,300 posts. I continue to read. The science is clear.
Its all OK he is a good reservation Chief, self imprisoned for life by lies.
An elected Chief of LIes, from the lie band of CO2 warriors.
Tenney Naumer says:
November 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@davidmhoffer, I am a shill for no one. I read voluminously on the subject. Some of what I read I repost on my blog (click on my name) — there are now more than 5,300 posts. I continue to read. The science is clear.>>>
Clicked your name. Nice compilation of ad hominem attacks, ugly smears, and nasty accusations. No science.
BTW, the science is in fact clear. CO2 effects are logarithmic. The discussion should have died on that point alone, and the mental gymnastics that alarmists such as yourself have to perform in order to ignore that fact are remarkable. It is no wonder that you folks always try and turn the discussion to tree ring data, polar bear populations and glacier thickness. Anything but the actual science.
Not a shill? Your own website speaks plainly that either you are, or you’ve been fooled. Pick up a 1st yeat university text book on physics and work your way through it. Just repeating the smears of like minded people like you do on your site isn’t science, it is just regurgitated material in large volume. Quanitity does not equal quality.
Tenney Naumer.
i see that you Studied Finance & Banking ….. Need I say more?
Tenney;
Turns out Anthony posted a thread special for you. Have a good read. There’s your fictitious consensus right there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/
David, you seem to have missed these two paragraphs:
A recent survey of climate scientists conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois found near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is happening.
This new George Mason University study, however, using results from a national survey of the American public, finds that many Americans believe that most climate scientists actually disagree about the subject.
David, I follow the consensus of the climate scientists, not that of the public.
REPLY: Tenney, are you blind or just willfully obtuse? Read the section on how the 97% percent was derived. If it were the other way around, your and the Rommulans would be squealing like stuck pigs- Anthony
Tenney;
Anthony beat me to the willfully obtuse…ok I would have said “blind”…comment. Really, read the article carefully. Read what it says instead of what you want it to say. The 97% is a total fiction. It wasn’t even a proper survey, it was just an invitation to respond. Of those that responded, almost all were excluded from the final results. If there really is a consensus, then why all the manipulation? Why the need to exclude so many respondents on feeble excuses and meaningless conditions?
The truth is that there is huge disagreement amongst scientists. Exactly as the American public believes. The old addage you can’t fool all of the people all of the time is turning out to be true yet again. And your attempt to misdirect in regard to what that study and the article about it says shows that my original accusation has merit.
You are just a shill.
Rather than asking you about jumping off bridges, I offer you a perfect analogy …
http://enenews.com/strange-two-high-profile-fukushima-studies-edited-by-global-warming-advocate-james-hansen-wrote-article-why-america-needs-nuclear-energy
Hansen is now a nuclear power genius, too! Thought you’d all like this info from ENE News today.
Tell you what. Delete the words “It seems” from the beginning of the story. You’re confident, right?
Accuse him. Don’t couch your story in weasel words. Accuse him. Tell the world.
Dr. Hansen appears to be violating government ethics laws, but this does not directly impact a more concerning legacy: his questionable treatment of data to support climate change models which are now driving public policy. Regrettably, even questioning his conclusions with competing data is not even entertained by the administration and the debate is tarnishing the reputation of NASA both domestically and internationally.
A good article to read on this topic can be found in the 9/20/2011 Op Ed of Forbes on line by Larry Bell. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/09/20/sorry-but-with-global-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/) This particular article about solar influences on climate resonates because of relatively recent events in the NW US. (http://www.iafi.org/) Much of the NW was covered by a mile of ice up until 13,000 years ago (including Seattle and Spokane), so localized (and catestrophic0 warming has been occuring for much longer than humans have been involved in industrialization. What precipitated this change, or the multitude of climate changes in the 4.5B years of planet Earth before the growth of the human population?
Recent data from NASA’s Mars Global and Surveyor missions show that the Mars poles have also been shrinking in the last three years. Several scientists have suggested that changes on both the Earth and Mars are due to changes in the solar irradiance which began to drop in the 1990’s (see National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html) Others, suggest that we may be experiencing both a solar cycle (11 years) as well as Milankovitch cycles (20,000 – 100,000 yrs). It is speculated that the effects of the sun could have been responsible for these large scale changes before the advent of fossil fuel combustion, making the human contribution exceedingly low. It would seem that before the US and Europe make unilateral environmental policy changes which significantly and adversely impact economic development and prosperity, that their respective governments would openly discuss the “real facts” and the validity of the models.
Hopefully, those who propose that humans are primarily changing the climate would welcome this open discussion, rather than to vilify those who question the data (which is part of the scientific process we teach our children). I propose that the President welcome this openly public discussion and have it sponsored by the OSTP. Not arriving at the “right” answer and not having it supported by all sectors (public and private) which must implement changed policy, will have a chilling impact on both the scientific process followed in this nation, as well as our prosperity. It already has.
Note; It is interesting that China is investing heavily in both artic and anarctic research (oil and climate change). (http://www.chinare.gov.cn/en/ and http://www.barentsobserver.com/china-to-boost-arctic-research.4781463.html and personal communications with scandanavian colleagues) If it is found that the sun is our primary climate driver, regardless of what humans do, then China can be reassured that their current policies would give themselves an economic advantage. Can the US afford the risk of being wrong? Being right means jobs, new technologies, education, abilty to explore the universe, a good quality of life, and the luxury of leisure time to really contemplate the future of humanity.
Man, I got accused of being on the payroll of the Koch brothers for getting a $500 honararim from the Cato Institute for a paper on scientific ethics – which primarily focused on problems in MEDICAL research, but mentioned ClimateGate in passing. What kind of stooge does that make Hansen?