Hansen’s resignation from NASA GISS may not be what it seems
Guest Post by Chris Horner, CEI
So, NASA’s in-house celebrity activist James Hansen says the following in explaining his departure from a lucrative perch — salary alone: $180k per year — one that proved extremely lucrative while there was a useful foil in the White House:
“‘As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,’ he told the Times.”
Hogwash.
Not that “Job 1” for Hansen at NASA was attentiveness to ethics guidelines or anything, but the rules say no such thing. See 5 C.F.R. Part 6901.103 (c) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805.
Indeed, on top of that cool $1 million-plus in outside cash tossed Hansen’s way after he ratcheted up the alarmism and — more important to many — politicking, he presided over an elaborate document removal/destruction operation run by his protégé and presumptive successor, Gavin Schmidt.
Now, we are to believe that Hansen is so concerned with his ethical obligations as a government employee that he is willing to operate by his own set of rules that, this time, are more restrictive than the real ones.
The fact is that Hansen, as a government employees, is not barred from testifying against the government. Ethics rules applying to Hansen at NASA simply say that he must seek permission to testify, just as he (usually, but not always) sought and, as the world knows in deed if not according to the rhetoric, received permission for his other global warming advocacy.
That requirement that Hansen first receive permission before testifying exists “to prevent an employee from using public office for the employee’s personal private gain”. Which (chuckle) is the same rationale behind the other ethics provisions under which Hansen sought and was routinely granted permission to make lots of outside money on his advocacy. Under George W. Bush.
So Hansen had no reason to believe he would not be permitted to do as he says he wishes.
Unless…
Ah, yes. Hansen’s current attention-getting story, when squared with the ethics rules, is that he has been denied approval to serve as an expert witness per 5 C.F.R 6901.103(d) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805(c) (serving as a fact witness requires overcoming no such impediments).
Further curious is that his testimony would be a particularly easy approval if “the subject matter of the testimony does not relate to the employee’s official duties”. Which we know would be the case — despite our having argued the absurdity of the idea — because since 2006 he has been absolutely cleaning up with outside income only made acceptable by the supposed reality that his various speeches and prizes, etc., were apparently deemed by NASA as not relating to his official duties. Under Bush.
But now, suddenly, under President Obama, it seems that the subject matter of his activism would indeed relate to his professional duties. Per the administration. According to Hansen’s clear implication. Huh.
If we are to believe Hansen — and face it, we all want to believe him — he was denied permission to serve as an expert witness. If this occurred, it is clear that this is a recent development. That is, during the Obama administration.
Which administration is, apparently, “muzzling” Hansen.
Surely you’ve seen the stories.
Of course, it could be that Mr. Hansen is talking through his hat. Some might argue, not for the first time. For example, what case or cases did he inquire about? Or, did someone who mattered merely let on that, if he asked to testify against the administration, they would deep-six the idea?
It is entirely plausible that Hansen has simply found that his NASA gig isn’t what it used to be in better times for the global warming advocate. Times when, for example, the media had no torn allegiances between Hansen’s bombast and the White House.
For example, that whole “Bush muzzling Hansen” mythology was just that; useful to everyone pushing it to superstitiously or conveniently explain the world, but not supported by much evidence (and belied by thousands of interviews).
Notwithstanding this, it remains worth noting that Team Obama putting the squeeze on Hansen is far less far-fetched.
Sure, early on their Department of Justice did work hard to protect him, a valuable advocate in pushing “the cause,” from having his ethics records disclosed to us, maintaining specious legal claims well after we filed suit.
Then, after Hansen made a pain of himself by drawing even more unwanted attention to the festering Keystone XL pipeline decision, getting arrested with (other) celebrities in front of the White House, the caginess suddenly evaporated. I received a call asking where I would like to have a messenger deliver the entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records we had sought.
Which is how we, and anyone else interested, learned about just how lucrative Hansen’s NASA employment had become for him.
So long as the right foil was in the White House. Then, a government astronomer could make an astronomical sum off of global warming alarmism. Whatever the rules said. Maybe Keystone XL really is proving to be the “game-changer” the greens have said.
============================================================
Christopher Horner is a fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author, his most recent book being “The liberal War on Transparency
Obama cant talk liberal on Gun Control and then get tough and bomb North Korea.
Perhaps Obama is getting cold feet on Climate Change. Enviromental voters he dont need them anymore.Questions about Climate Sensitivity and High Energy Prices.
Once Hansen is in the witness box Smart US government Lawyers start asking about the times he was in charge and rip him to pieces.
Jan P Perlwitz
I would like to know why Giss believe they are the ‘starting’ post of increasing temperatures when it is clear they are merely a ‘staging’ post of the increased warmth that commenced in the 1690’s.
Has anyone at Giss written about the causes?
tonyb
– – – – – – –
Chris Horner,
I agree with you that it is unlikely to be coincidence. Great find! And I appreciated your posting style, subtle is effective in this case.
What is CEI’s plan to release the ‘entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records’ which you have finally received from the Federal government? Very soon, I hope!
John
Anthony Watts wrote:
You certainly have some opinion. However, you haven’t even told yet what your speculation is what my “real motive” was. All you said is it “must be something else”, which is just innuendo. So what is it, supposedly?
Everyone who has an office at GISS whether employed with NASA or not, is listed there.
Others here have figured out, what institution employs me. Why not you? It’s really not difficult. Just click on my name in the directory, and it’s going to stare you in the face.
REPLY: You say “I am not employed at GISS”, yet concede you have an office there. So are you working gratis? I doubt it. The blurred lines of who funds who and who pays who in your academic hive there are part of the reason for distrust of GISS in general. What part of Hansen Inc. is Columbia, what part of Hansen Inc. is NASA GISS federal money, what part of Hansen Inc. is NGO funds and donations? What part do you get? Your web page says one thing, you say another. I suggest you get your presentations straight. If you aren’t part of GISS then the best thing to do is have yourself removed from the personnel directory. I’ll be willing to concede the point that you are not employed there if I see your name removed. Please advise when this is done. – Anthony
You gotta love it when people like Jan P Perlwitz show up in this site with nothing, Budda, Boom.
Perhaps Hansen will now be free(er) to pimp for the coming Carbon tax …
@ur momisugly Jan P Perlwitz says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:34 am
I now have a problem. You previously said that you are not prepared to say anything much about the goings on at GISS because no-one is “seriously interested”. Obviously you were not referring to Hansen since people plainly are.
What were you referring to if not GISS itself? And now you say you do not have a formal association with it? I actually – believe it or not – took you at your word and expressed sincere interest. Was that a waste of time? Would you like to explain?
Anthony Watts wrote:
I see you have added something to your last reply.
James Hansen has been an adjunct professor at Columbia University.
James Hansen’s affiliation listed in the GISS directory doesn’t say “Columbia University”, it says “NASA”, since he was a federal employee with NASA. In contrast, my entry in the GISS directory clearly states “Columbia University” as my affiliation, but not “NASA”.
Quite a number of scientists working at GISS are actually Columbia University employees, based on a collaborative agreement between CU and NASA.
Jan-
You seem to be ignoring my request for data. Isn’t that more important than the sniping?
Friends:
This is a good week.
Today is only Monday and already I have had two wonderful pieces of genuine humour from contributors to WUWT.
I was moved to write to applaud the truly wonderful and hilarious satire about fungal toe infection and Mann’s hockey stick from Tom J at April 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/07/hockey-bazinga/
I did not think anything could be funnier than that, but – as they say – truth is often stranger than fiction, and Tom J was making a deliberate joke.
But that joke has been surpassed as a source of side-slapping merriment in this thread by Jan P Perlw1tz trying to defend James Hansen who has been emitted from NASA GISS.
The execrable defending the excrement. You couldn’t make it up.
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:04 am
…
You certainly have some opinion. However, you haven’t even told yet what your speculation is what my “real motive” was. All you said is it “must be something else”, which is just innuendo. So what is it, supposedly?
—-
Looks like it’s to play stupid guessing games.
Obama is no math and science whiz. Maybe he just finally figured out Global Warming is a hoax. After all. even the blind squirrel occasionally gets the…..
Jan P Perlwitz is “a working climate scientist.” according to his blog. Therefore his presence here can be seen a his fight to continue the lavish funding of his religion. On his blog he is see he is a ‘Temperature Standstill Denier’ and he tells us that black is white and 1 + 1 = 27746585.
Anthony Watts wrote:
Of course not. My salary is funded like the salary of most of the scientific researchers with Columbia University affiliation, having an office at GISS or at some other building of the university campus. It’s financed with soft money from time-limited grants coming from different federal agencies.
What are you talking about? My affiliation in the GISS directory says, “Columbia University”, I say “Columbia University”. How do I say another thing compared to what is said in the directory?
Now, this request is just ridiculous.
REPLY: OK then, since that is ridiculous you have settled the issue. You are employed at NASA GISS – Anthony
lurker passing through, laughing says:
April 8, 2013 at 4:56 am
Hansen claiming things that are not true is rather typical of his style, is it now?
===================
Was going to say the same thing myself.
Just like Mann and his unsupported conclusions about Big Oil funding.
No data, other than fabricated data to support the conclusions. Same modus operandi, different context. Creating fake memes for their minions and acolytes to propagate to delude a) the sheeple and b) the crap and/or “too busy to get into it more thoroughly” scientists.
I guess that’s how their brains work. Maybe they actually do think it’s all true, and need some kind of therapy ?
By the way, for all those parents like myself out there with college age kids, check out Columbia University’s tuition and fees:
http://sfs.columbia.edu/
By my tally, it costs about $50-60,000 to attend Columbia for ONE year. Multiply by four. Add in the expense of being in New York City.
NASA needs to move GISS OUT of Columbia and OUT of NYC…perhaps to North Dakota??? Much cheaper to do research there…
Anthony,
Lest Perlwitz try to wiggle too much out of being officially in GISS organization, here is some info from GISS’s website.
and
Jan is, in GISS’s own terminology, a member of GISS through his position in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. So he is officially on staff of GISS and his salary is apparently funded through Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics.
Also Note : Perlwitz has a NASA email address.
Perlwitz is denying his membership in GISS? He doesn’t understand his own position in GISS?
John
Bob says: “Hansen is a great example of a privileged government employee taking advantage of his position without any fear of reprimand.”
???
I beg to differ. “Great example”??? Hansen is a twat. He is the very worst example. He has been an idiot on climate … I could go on, but the key thing is that as I put on my blog “another one bites the dust”.
I think the euphemism is: “he’s opted to spend more time with the environment”. In other words, he’s been booted out into the wilderness to be eaten alive by the midges.
Now we need someone to muzzle Obama and Kerry.
@Jan P Perlwitz
I find this blog and its readers are fair and are willingly to politely allow you to freely and openly comment. However, the level of skepticism is high and the tolerance for spin and BS are low.
The moderators here do a good job of keeping the discussion civil and other commenters will call-out posters who are out of line.
Go on, make an honest post and see. Be careful about mixing facts with opinion, however, or trying to pass off opinion as fact. Commentary, by its very nature, is subjective and opinionated. Facts however, are not.
In other words, you would be more than welcome to post here, not only as a commenter but as a guest poster.
Jan P Perlwitz, which of the following is smear?
* Hansen is an astronomer.
* Hansen, in 1967, claimed that Venus was hot because of dust.
* Hansen’s model was used by Rasool & Schneider to predict another ice age back in 1971.
* Hansen once said that AGW would lead to the oceans boiling. The IPCC says that this claim is not supported in the literature and is highly unlikely [pdf] and even the atmospheric physicist and Warmist Sir John Houghton says there is “no possibility” of runaway greenhouse conditions on Earth to be caused by anthropogenic activities.
Dr. James Hansen is unhinged. He now follows money and fame. He will soon be shamed then forgotten, just like you Jan P Perlwitz.
Claude Harvey says: “However, the “usefulness ended” theory runs afoul of the fact that he certainly was not politically useful to the Bush administration, yet he survived and thrived.”
Claude, Hansen was useful to NASA. NASA launched a whole raft of earth monitoring projects on the back of global warming in the same way they did on Ozone. Scaring US politicians didn’t require any intelligence, just the gall to make up stuff. Scaring US politicians funded NASA – so Hansen was very very useful to NASA and probably brought in billions to that organisation.
So, the demise of Hansen, shows us that NASA no longer sees CO2 non-science as a lucrative source of future space project funding. Indeed, given the amount of CO2 produced by NASA with each launch it is VERY surprising they didn’t dump the tard earlier.
In other words, I do not believe this has anything to do with external politics like Obama … except in so far as NASA has always tried to con US politicians into dumping money their way and Hansen clearly is not considered an asset any longer.
This is good news. Now, who is going to bail him out?
Dr. James Hansen was getting jealous of all those lying climate scientists who wer making money so he changed his story. Hansen is a climate chameleon.
@Jan P Perlwitz says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:19 am
I addressed two comments to you above which you have not seen fit to respond to.
I do not have an intricate knowledge of the people involved in “Climate Science”. At the risk of offending your ego, I can’t recall having heard your name before, although it seems from the above at least some are familiar with you and/or your role.
Anything I know of you is purely from the above exchanges. And it is not creating a good impression. So far as any of the above has much meaning to me, this has been how things have progressed:
You say no-one is interested in hearing about how GISS is working. I say I am. No response. You then say (to another) that you don’t work at GISS. I ask how that is given your previous comment, and whether I had wasted my time. No response. You now say in effect (to another) that you have an office at GISS – that is, that you work there as part of GISS.
I have no idea what you actually do. Someone above says your website describes you as a “working climate scientist”. I looked briefly at that site and all I could see was stuff about being censored at WUWT. What do you do exactly? Is your function as some sort of frontman?
As I have said I can only judge you on what I have seen here. Its not good. Frankly, what I have seen is evasion. Someone who will not give straightforward responses to simple things when these are publicly displayed is not someone who anyone should have confidence in when it comes to matters dealt with privately.
As a child, like many, for me NASA was iconic. My father had an association with it in the 1960’s. What type of people are there now? Is what I – and anyone – can see with Hansen, and I have seen here with you, representative of the standards of NASA now? If so, how can anyone have any confidence in it or anyone associated with it?