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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I am not employed at GISS” – Jan P Perlwitz
“my entry in the GISS directory” – Jan P Perlwitz
“Everyone who has an office at GISS” – Jan P Perlwitz
“Quite a number of scientists working at GISS ” – Jan P Perlwitz
So which is it, Jan? you are not employed by GISS or you work (ie are employed) at GISS? If you are not employed by/work for GISS, why do they supply you with an office? Sorry jan, but you keep contradicting your “I am not employed at GISS” story at every turn. Bottom line is they provide you with an office, they provide you with money, therefore you are employed by them, so stop pretending otherwise because you are not fooling anyone.
Would that include fossil fuel funding for Warmists? LOL.
more soylent green! says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:57 am
@Jan P Perlwitz
=========================
He’s right!
And while you are here – Hi, and will GISS be reinstating the historical temperature records your former colleague has been corrupting?
Inquiring minds and all that eh? You have a nice day. See, we’re real friendly over here at WUWT.
Jan P Perlwitz-
As you are a big Hansen supporter, you must be aware of his dead-certain sea level rise prediction (among other things) from the late 1980’s. These predictions referenced the local community where you work. Why on Earth would you ever consider taking a job at a location (GISS or Columbia or both, take your pick) that will be underwater in a few years? Do you not have faith in Hansen’s predictions? What about his prediction of increased crime rates in your community? What about his suggestion of taping your office window to defend against the predicted increased winds?
You must also agree with his prediction that all of the oceans will boil off due to CO2-triggered runaway greenhouse warming. When do you expect ocean surface temperatures to reach an average of 100 C?
– – – – – – – – –
It is unlikely Schmidt is a Hansen replacement, given Schmidt’s public exposure as having less than rigorous professional / intellectual integrity appearances; the questionable integrity appearances are very well documented during his RC involvement over a long time period while either possibly ¿on-the-job-at-GISS? or on his own extracurricular time.
Also, look at his loser looking appearance on Stossel’s show a couple weeks ago. Surely NASA won’t accept that kind of petulant and ill mannered face as their new era GISS leader. I think the NASA boys in Washington have had enough of Hansen and his scientifically quirky isolated leadership/team.
Had Schmidt been told just before the Stossel’s show that he would not be Hansen’s replacement?
John
John Whitman says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:45 am
GISS Personnel Directory
Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz
Affiliation: Columbia University
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA
E-mail: *******@nasa.gov
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.
=====================================================
GISS Personnel Directory. Does Jan even know what the word Personnel means? “per·son·nel (pûrs-nl) n. The body of persons employed by an organization”
If, as he maintains in the face of all facts, he is not employed by GISS, he really needs to get himself removed from thier “body of persons employed” directory. (and turn in his NASA email address to boot) if he ever expects anyone to take him seriously when he asserts “I am not employed by GISS”.
My question would be, What is the Climate Change “caravan” going to do when the tempature goes down for the next few decades?
It’s already been one full decade +.
James Hansen is a fanatic. There are adverse consequences when governments appoint fanatics to lead research that affects public policy. It is impossible to ‘win’ the ‘war’ on climate change. One of the consequences of Hansen’s legacy is we stop the ‘war’ on climate change.
I am curious how far the Obama administration and the EU will move towards a world agreement to ‘fight’, climate change. China, India, and the African countries have asked for 1% of the Western Countries GDP per year and a commitment from the Western Countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% before they will consider signing a legally binding agreement to their limit greenhouse gases.
Reducing greenhouse gas by 80% and a transfer of GPD of 1% per year to other countries is economic insanity that would transform the Western Countries into third world countries. The US congress and the US public will not support the transformation of the US into a third world country. At what point will there be a discussion of the costs and benefits of the ‘war’ on climate change?
When participating in a mania, logic and reason are set aside. There is often a component of propaganda, lies, and corruption: The dot.com, Y2K mania, and the mortgage trading mania. Mania’s end when reality becomes apparent, normally when there are adverse consequences.
The higher and higher unemployment and deficits in the Western Countries is an indication of that we have structural problems in our economies. The next president will be forced to address the US structural problems. The climate fighting policies are a significant reason why the US is not competitive with the Asia. Reducing CO2 emissions does not protect the environment. The EPA’s own internal report supports that assertion.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by the EPA’s own scientist. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (William: This is a very good read. See attached for details.)
more soylent green! says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:57 am
@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.
===========================================
considering he can’t even be honest about his relationship with GISS (“I don’t work for GISS nevermind the fact that they list me in their personnel directory, give me an office and an email address, and provide the funding to my department at Columbia that pays my salary”) I won’t be holding my breathe for him to make one anytime soon.
Jan, I think it’s good that you are here.
I believe it’s helpful to have a climate scientist here with some insight.
Do you really think we want CO2 to destroy the world or could it be we’ve seen this type of advocacy before from other do gooders?
Can you tell us why some climate scientists are willing to lie, cheat, hide, steal and who knows what else for the cause?
We know Hansen demonstrated his dishonesty right from the start.
Jones destroyed his data, Mann hid his and who knows what head ethics guy Gleick is willing to do because he already lied and stole then lied some more.
They do this with no penalty or repercussions.
Then they demand we trust them because all they want to save the world.
Every skeptic I’ve read offers up their data, programs, code and decision process.
They state their case, offer their data as evidence, answer questions and admit their mistakes.
At WUWT you have to show your work and argue your case.
You’re a scientist. You believe in CAGW. Offer your evidence without fudging.
cn
REPLY: OK then, since that is ridiculous you have settled the issue. You are employed at NASA GISS – Anthony
Let’s not get bogged down in semantics. Regardless of who pays him, the important thing is that he works on GISS; Jan can elaborate on that if he wishes. And even more important, Jan is reading and writing on this blog, even though he finds it a bit hostile. How many others in his position have the guts to do this? Jan has been a co-author with Hansen on several papers. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html
And yes, I am interested in the inner workings of GISS.
I agree there is something else going on. Something has scared Hansen off. He was in a nice safe cosy position with good pay and a megaphone, doing what he does so forthrightly. Now he’s on the run, or at least ducking for cover. That’s what it seems like to me.
I’m disappointed that NASA didn’t see fit to boot him out publicly. A big FAIL in my book for NASA. It’s a shame, NASA was the best when I was a kid and will never make it back onto that pedestal. They had their chance. They missed it. I can’t think of them now without thinking “cowards” but then, most of the moon landing crew – up there and in Control – are disappointed in what NASA has become, so I’m not alone.
I’m glad Hansen has gone, but sad that NASA never stood up to him, nor stood up for science. The NASA that was – the NASA that was all heroes and pure science and adventure – that NASA is long gone.
I agree. The “I double-dog dare you” to make a guest post was implied, but perhaps should have been explicit. From his actions, he’s just another drive-by troll making unfounded accusations about people he disagrees with.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
> And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. I am not a federal employee.
My guess is that NASA GISS pays Columbia and Columbia pays on-site GISS personnel. It may be a convenient way to claim that the feds can’t dictate limits on GISS folks at Columbia. Columbia doesn’t seem too place limits either, good deal.
I don’t believe for a minute that Hansen is being discouraged in any way by the alarmist toady/Judge-Jury-and-Executioner administration. I think they regard him as a very useful tool and an effective servant of “the cause.” I think he may be leaving NASA with the expectation that his communications now won’t be subject to FOIA inquiries.
The Obully administration has made it very clear that there is to be no retreat from the alarmist agenda – inter alia, by nominating an individual (Gina McCarthy) who says that if Congress doesn’t make the necessary laws to implement Agenda 21, she will make them and Congress be damned.
Hey Jan P we have something in common. I, too, do not work for GISS. I’m interested in finding out if they will give me an office and an email address if I continue to not work for them. If you don’t use yours, I would be happy to share it with you. I promise I will not use it and will be happy to share it with an unlimited number of people who don’t work for GISS provided they don’t use it either. I just need to know who to contact to make this arrangement.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
April 8, 2013 at 5:37 am
This piece by anti-climate-science activist Horner, who regularly gets his space here on Anthony Watts’s blog, of the industry funded lobby group “Competitive Enterprise Institute”, which is known for its disinformation campaigns regarding results from scientific research that are inconvenient for some economic, political, and ideological interests, consists mostly of speculation, with some links to previous opinion pieces and unproven accusations by Horner. It probably is just an advertisement for his book anyway.
=====
Chris Horner is an attorney, and the post here is entirely about a legal point about which he is well qualified to speak. Do you care to dispute his legal analysis?
I wonder how much it pays to not work for GISS? What are the qualifications and educational requirements? Is there a way to apply online to not for GISS?
@Toto says: April 8, 2013 at 10:00 am
And yes, I am interested in the inner workings of GISS.
=====================================================
Same here. E.G. I’d like to know if the original temp readings that Hansen screwed are still available, and when they will be re-instated?
@Ric Werme says: April 8, 2013 at 10:29 am
Jan P Perlwitz says:
> And to correct your false statement from before. I am not employed at GISS. I am not a federal employee.
My guess is that NASA GISS pays Columbia and Columbia pays on-site GISS personnel. It may be a convenient way to claim that the feds can’t dictate limits on GISS folks at Columbia. Columbia doesn’t seem too place limits either, good deal.
====================================================================
The taxpayer pays. Not NASA. Not Columbia. The taxpayer. This man is a public servant. Repeat. Public SERVANT. He doesn’t work for me as I am a Brit, but he works for, and is answerable to all of you Americans here. End of.
It’s already too late to do anything according to Dr. James Hansen.
“NCSE is pleased to announce three new additions to its Advisory Council, reflecting the addition of climate education to NCSE’s area of concern: James E. Hansen, Michael MacCracken, and Bill McKibben. ”
-http://ncse.com/news/2013/04/three-new-climate-advisors-ncse-0014796
I would suggest that Jan P Perlwitz is playing with semantics as a means of misdirection. He wants us off the topic of Hansen.
So… Back to Hansen! Someone’s had a word in his ear, for sure. I’d love to know what the threat was. How else do you get a fanatic out of a powerful seat like that, without using a crowbar or dynamite? Is someone holding something over him? A threat of the law perhaps? I’d love that! The same would surely apply to all.
More likely, though, they know he’ll only put his foot in it if he tried the “star witness” bit. He wouldn’t last two seconds on cross examination. Yet that would not lose him his position. No one has ever stopped Hansen from sticking his foot in his mouth – why should anyone think they could stop him now? It would only make him more determined.
So… what is going on? All we know for sure is that, so far, he’s lying about it (wot a surprise).
In the mean time Hansons all over the world continue to spread their crap, take this one now published by the BBC: Plane flights ‘to get more turbulent’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22063340
Part 1)
An employee matter reaching the office of the President is never a good thing.
___An excellent employee will suddenly be fodder for promotion to new fields/offices to improve them.
___A superlative employee might be yanked and given immediate assignments where the President of one of his staff needs qualified assistance. Sometimes the original office still foots the employee’s new salary for a few years.
___A bad performing employee brings embarrassment to the entire chain of management from the employee’s superior right up to Cabinet/Officer level.
___An employee’s superior who kicks his job up to a superior whether they pass the buck themselves or are bypassed by the employee is immediately viewed as insufficient to the managing task.
In all likelihood, in spite of claims otherwise, it has always been Hansen’s immediate supervisor who has been approving/disapproving requests.
That said, I’ve been writing regular letters to Rep. Issa (when they still allowed that) and my Congressmen asking how is it that Hansen’s Officer level employment tolerates willful law breaking, clear activism that corresponds/conflicts his duties, and earning money for activism where he uses his government employment duties/knowledge for personal earnings…
I’m fairly sure many others have written similar notes.
Congressmen earn part of their keep by being responsive to the people and serious questions regarding a Federal employee usually result in an official letter from the congressman to the Federal Employee’s superior. Often they’ll frame the questions directly with the laws/regulations relating to the activity in question.
___Enough embarrassing questions come filtering in and the employee’s supervisor starts getting cold feet in a hurry.
___Enough frivolous obfuscating letters replying to congressmen and their next step is to forward all letters to an investigating authority (Congressional, AG, IG, FBI, etc…)
___Enough agencies, prosecutors, whatever start asking questions and the employee becomes hot property. If any of the groups have done enough investigation to start legal proceedings they may negotiate with the employee’s superiors and the employee to try and avoid a costly legal battle and save the government a lot of embarrassment. Unfortunately, all too many Federal employees get to retire this way; keeping their retirement parachute. Usually no word of any bargaining is ever released if the employee stays legal.
Part 2)
Federal employees working till age 72 is a rarity.
___Either they are truly committed to work and cannot see themselves doing anything else,
___Or they are achieving things that benefit them personally (protection from suits, influential statements, squashing inconvenient research, fame glory and all that),
___Or they truly believe that everything will fall apart if they retire (all too often this is the most common reason for Federal managers staying past maximum retirement benefit)
Federal employees get some interesting benefits that are extremely valuable in the long run. Most have some sort of minimizer to prevent someone really making a mint this way; but for most senior officers, many of these minimizers are exempted.
A) Retirement pay
__Most Federal retirement pay reaches a maximum payout level based on position and years of service. By the time a Federal employee reaches 42 years of civil service (usually including military service) they have reached the top of the retirement package’s retirement salary. additional years of work only garner that year’s salary and a new year to list their top 3 years of salary (used for retirement pay).
__Sick leave can be saved forever; but is not paid out to the employee when retiring. Some employees figure out how much sick leave they’ve saved and then skate their last years into retirement.
__Annual leave hours can also be saved. Technically up to a maximum; but senior executive staff are exempted and can save their leave until retirement. I believe there is a restriction that requires employees above a certain annual leave level to utilize at least one week a year. Federal career employees receive approximately five weeks of annual leave per year. Annual salary employees can not take less than one day of annual leave at a time.
__Annual leave still on the books is paid out lump sum when the employee retires.
B) Retirement
OPM requires some interesting steps. Employees must file paperwork certifying when they will retire up to XX days in advance. Yes, an employee can file paperwork and leave that day.
__What’s interesting is that the employee must be careful exactly when they retire as their first month’s salary may be a month away if they file after the due date for the retirement month.
__This little tidbit is the first thing I look at when someone who should know better suddenly retires. This means did they file to retire and retire before the first of the month.
Nicely forced out or perhaps be prosecuted means the employee gets to choose their exit date within reason. Directly forced out and perhaps prosecuted and the employee leaves the building that day sans keys, IDs, Logons, government property; the term is escorted from the building.
Hansen retired just before the first of the month. That means he chose when to retire and any other conclusions are assumptions until proved otherwise. (Like FOI-ing his email records and official comments on presentations or hearings.) I’m not defending him, just stating what I see of his retirement notices and actions.
Hansen will be out from under the Federal Lawsuit protection. Any cases he enters may be on his dime unless he’s glommed a sponsor with deeeeep pockets.