Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,495
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Mary M
    Newest Member
    Mary M
    Joined

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sunny and Warm

James Hansen continues to cash in on AGW

Recommended Posts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/#more-48588

Disclosure Obtained by ATI Environmental Law Center Shows the Wealth Keeps Flowing for Dr. James Hansen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, October 3, 2011

Contact: Paul Chesser, Executive Director, [email protected]

As it waits for the resolution of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit ( http://bit.ly/nnKpxS ) against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which seeks the outside employment permission records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center has received the belatedly filed 2010 public financial disclosure of the renowned director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:

• Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;

• Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;

• Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities

The travel reporting marked the first time Hansen detailed such “in-kind” benefits, which included apparent first-class travel for him and his wife on trips to Australia, Japan, and Norway. The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years, which he left blank and attested “none” in the space where he is required to report travel expenses taken as part of his outside employment, all in years in which he was busy with numerous paid outside activities of the same sort as he was in 2010.

“Now that Dr. Hansen’s outside income has come under scrutiny, we see a newfound attention to detail on forms where he reports about these sources,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “It also shows that Dr. Hansen continues to enjoy a healthy level of earnings that supplement – and for his curious exploitation of – the taxpayer-funded position he holds.”

As ATI detailed in its current lawsuit against NASA in federal court in Washington, Dr. Hansen admits this income began after he escalated his public – and often political – global warming advocacy, for which outside parties have spectacularly rewarded him.

ATI sued NASA because the agency refuses to make public any forms 17-60 – the application for permission for outside employment – by invoking the Privacy Act and calling their release “a clearly unwarranted violation’ of Hansen’s privacy.” These forms would demonstrate to the public and Congress whether NASA has signed off on Hansen’s lucrative activities, even though they raise serious questions under Ethics in Government Act rules. NASA’s withholding of the 17-60s is improper because Dr. Hansen, like other federal employees of the highest levels of pay and responsibility, waives certain privacy interests as a condition of his employment. Dr. Hansen is required to file the permission forms before most or all of his outside employment activities.

These requirements that cover Dr. Hansen include annual public financial disclosure that is vastly more detailed and personal than the one-page application for permission for outside employment and other activities. This is also true of senior government officials including Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, the President and Vice President.

ATI expects the media will share its curiosity about Dr. Hansen’s records at NASA, considering they have shown similar recent interest in others’ disclosures. For example:

• The Wall Street Journal‘s recent coverage ( http://on.wsj.com/oqypvi ) about Congress members’ public financial disclosures

• The Huffington Post on Thursday reported that some Democrats demand ( http://huff.to/oBI82s ) an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s filings and the propriety of his wife’s income

• The New York Times‘ recently published a (serially corrected) 2700-word piece ( http://nyti.ms/pbIpcC ) that highlighted how public servants are “restricted from using their positions ‘for personal gain’ or on matters in which they have a direct financial interest,” and how they “must avoid outside work that can pose a ‘time conflict,’ and ‘detract from [the employee's] full time and attention to his official duties,’” as those rules “were designed to promote the notion of a full-time [employee].”

“That Dr. Hansen very well may be the country’s first millionaire bureaucrat — thanks to this flood of outside income since 2006 all clearly related to his public employment – raises similar questions,” Horner said. “Given his high profile and the significant role attributed to him in the climate debate, his and NASA’s own record on this front should generate at least as much interest.”

See Dr. James Hansen’s 2010 SF 278 disclosure form here: http://bit.ly/oVJX1e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this because it is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack - when they can't attack the science, they attack the scientist.

But what I find deliciously ironic about this attack is that the denialist group ATI doesn't seem to realize that they are actually increasing Hansen's credibility. Let's look at where the money is coming from:

Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches
- this is clear evidence that Hansen is in the top of echelon of climate scientists. Why else would organizations be paying him to address their groups? How is that underhanded?

Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes
- The prizes are acknowledgement that Dr Hansen's research has advanced our understanding of the Earth's climate. it's recognition for outstanding research. That's why prizes for research are given. And notice how it's phrased - about a factor of seven in the high and low claims for his prize money when they could simply have added up his prizes and reported a total. Or at least a firm estimate. But it makes a better smear to inflate the upper end to over a million dollars. ATI could just as (dis)honestly have claimed that Hansen has received between $150,001 and $1.1 BILLION in prizes.

Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities
- Wow, stop the presses, Hansen got reimbursed for travel expenses! So what? And some of that travel was first class! Again, so what? This wasn't taxpayer funded travel, the money came from the organizations he was speaking to. If any group offers me first class tickets, I'm taking them.

Just to keep the amounts in perspective - the ANNUAL salary for Nick Saban, the head football coach at the taxpayer supported University of Alabama, is $5.9 million. The top ten highest paid coaches all make over @2.5 million per year. Do you really want to claim that climatologists like Dr Hansen are in it for the money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this because it is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack - when they can't attack the science, they attack the scientist.

But what I find deliciously ironic about this attack is that the denialist group ATI doesn't seem to realize that they are actually increasing Hansen's credibility. Let's look at where the money is coming from:

Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches
- this is clear evidence that Hansen is in the top of echelon of climate scientists. Why else would organizations be paying him to address their groups? How is that underhanded?

Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes
- The prizes are acknowledgement that Dr Hansen's research has advanced our understanding of the Earth's climate. it's recognition for outstanding research. That's why prizes for research are given. And notice how it's phrased - about a factor of seven in the high and low claims for his prize money when they could simply have added up his prizes and reported a total. Or at least a firm estimate. But it makes a better smear to inflate the upper end to over a million dollars. ATI could just as (dis)honestly have claimed that Hansen has received between $150,001 and $1.1 BILLION in prizes.

Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities
- Wow, stop the presses, Hansen got reimbursed for travel expenses! So what? And some of that travel was first class! Again, so what? This wasn't taxpayer funded travel, the money came from the organizations he was speaking to. If any group offers me first class tickets, I'm taking them.

Just to keep the amounts in perspective - the ANNUAL salary for Nick Saban, the head football coach at the taxpayer supported University of Alabama, is $5.9 million. The top ten highest paid coaches all make over @2.5 million per year. Do you really want to claim that climatologists like Dr Hansen are in it for the money?

I will, of course he is in it for the money at this point.... He does not have the skills to be a football coach so I'm not sure how your analogy is relevant. If you think he is not interested in making the money he is, imo you are being delusional. He will like anyone else in his postion milk it for all it is worth, you should not underestimate the power of the dollar.

http://www.americanw...ng-this-summer/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will, of course he is in it for the money at this point.... He does not have the skills to be a football coach so I'm not sure how your analogy is relevant. If you think he is not interested in making the money he is, imo you are being delusional. He will like anyone else in his postion milk it for all it is worth, you should not underestimate the power of the dollar.

http://www.americanw...ng-this-summer/

If you really think Dr Hansen chose climatology as his career path in order to rake in the big bucks then you are the delusional one. And as for accepting awards and speaking honoraria - why shouldn't he? If he refused to accept awards and refused to speak about his research would that make him more credible in your opinion? Would you feel his research findings were more robust?

He has earned his accolades through years of hard work. That's not the same as milking his position for all it's worth. If you can't understand the distinction that says more about you than about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think Dr Hansen chose climatology as his career path in order to rake in the big bucks then you are the delusional one. And as for accepting awards and speaking honoraria - why shouldn't he? If he refused to accept awards and refused to speak about his research would that make him more credible in your opinion? Would you feel his research findings were more robust?

He has earned his accolades through years of hard work. That's not the same as milking his position for all it's worth. If you can't understand the distinction that says more about you than about him.

If you noticed in my post you quoted I said "at this point" which means he did not choose climate science for the money but at this point he is going to milk it as much as he can. Why wouldn't he? He is making a fortune on AGW, of course he is going to continue to press the theory.

He presses it so much he predicts things like this.....

http://www.americanw...ng-this-summer/

He is imo, intentionality a high profile person, getting arrested and saying things that spark controversy is all part of the game to make lots of money by garnering more fame to sell books and make/justify exorbitant speaking fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this because it is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack - when they can't attack the science, they attack the scientist.

Was it bad science that caused Hansen to be dead wrong with his ENSO prediction for this year? Or his overdone U.S./global predictions from the 1980s?

It is a dangerous position to assume the science and the scientist are above reproach, as you seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly confused as to why denialists think Hansen's incorrect ENSO prediction is somehow a big deal. It was just a prediction, and weathernen, of all professionals, should appreciate that sometimes predictionsare wrong. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly confused as to why denialists think Hansen's incorrect ENSO prediction is somehow a big deal. It was just a prediction, and weathernen, of all professionals, should appreciate that sometimes predictionsare wrong. So what?

He did it in 2006 too with his Super-Nino prediction that was supposed to rival all nino's over the past 100 years. It is not the first big bust of an ENSO prediction he has made.... For a climate scientist to bust so badly on these predictions it does not do him any favors for credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Hansen did NOT get into this field for the money. I'm sure he firmly believed in everything he said back when he got into this. Now, fast forward to the present... Does the fact that he's getting a lot of money influence the things he says these days? No way to prove it does or doesn't. Money is a very powerful tool, but for all we know he could still really believe in what he says, in which case his science is not very good at all with respect to ENSO forecasting and he should stick to longer term stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly confused as to why denialists think Hansen's incorrect ENSO prediction is somehow a big deal. It was just a prediction, and weathernen, of all professionals, should appreciate that sometimes predictionsare wrong. So what?

I am not a "denialist". Please try to move beyond these petty terms.

He is a climate scientist. One would think that he wouldn't make a prediction like that without having a scientific reason to do so. In this case, and in several others, it hasn't worked out for him. But we should just assume the science is bulletproof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Hansen did NOT get into this field for the money. I'm sure he firmly believed in everything he said back when he got into this. Now, fast forward to the present... Does the fact that he's getting a lot of money influence the things he says these days? No way to prove it does or doesn't. Money is a very powerful tool, but for all we know he could still really believe in what he says, in which case his science is not very good at all with respect to ENSO forecasting and he should stick to longer term stuff.

He probably wants validation. Why should anyone believe his predictions for decades from now if he can't get the ones for the next year right? It's not like ENSO is out of his realm of climate science. I admire his guts to make these short term predictions, but getting them wrong does hurt his reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think Dr Hansen chose climatology as his career path in order to rake in the big bucks then you are the delusional one. And as for accepting awards and speaking honoraria - why shouldn't he? If he refused to accept awards and refused to speak about his research would that make him more credible in your opinion? Would you feel his research findings were more robust?

He has earned his accolades through years of hard work. That's not the same as milking his position for all it's worth. If you can't understand the distinction that says more about you than about him.

what accolades did he earn?? As far as I know, he's yet to be right, and if I am incorrect that he is wrong 100% of the time, then he's darn close to that percent. Let's not forget that a majority of the population does not believe in AGW, so he should get no credit for a silly and wayward theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it bad science that caused Hansen to be dead wrong with his ENSO prediction for this year? Or his overdone U.S./global predictions from the 1980s?

It is a dangerous position to assume the science and the scientist are above reproach, as you seem to.

I am not aware of any predictions he made in the 1980s. What he made were projections based on a number of assumptions which he said may or may not be valid assumptions. Among these assumptions were values for projected emissions and a climate sensitivity of 4C. He never said that the sensitivity value of 4C was correct... it was simply a value drawn from the work of other scientists. As the science evolved over the 1990s the consensus became to be more like 3C (although with considerable uncertainty of it being anywhere between 2-4.5C), Hansen issued a correction of the original model using the newer climate sensitivity value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly confused as to why denialists think Hansen's incorrect ENSO prediction is somehow a big deal. It was just a prediction, and weathernen, of all professionals, should appreciate that sometimes predictionsare wrong. So what?

Ah, but wait a second young Phillip. I've been told time and again that weather and climate are two different animals, and just because weather models are often incorrect five days out doesn't mean climate models can't be right 100 years from now. Am I to assume by your comment that you admit weather and climate models can be wrong?? If so, care to expound on what climate model predictions you deem incorrect??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but wait a second young Phillip. I've been told time and again that weather and climate are two different animals, and just because weather models are often incorrect five days out doesn't mean climate models can't be right 100 years from now. Am I to assume by your comment that you admit weather and climate models can be wrong?? If so, care to expound on what climate model predictions you deem incorrect??

That's not what he said at all. Try reading again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Hansen did NOT get into this field for the money. I'm sure he firmly believed in everything he said back when he got into this. Now, fast forward to the present... Does the fact that he's getting a lot of money influence the things he says these days? No way to prove it does or doesn't. Money is a very powerful tool, but for all we know he could still really believe in what he says, in which case his science is not very good at all with respect to ENSO forecasting and he should stick to longer term stuff.

which he has proven to exaggerate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not aware of any predictions he made in the 1980s. What he made were projections based on a number of assumptions which he said may or may not be valid assumptions. Among these assumptions were values for projected emissions and a climate sensitivity of 4C. He never said that the sensitivity value of 4C was correct... it was simply a value drawn from the work of other scientists. As the science evolved over the 1990s the consensus became to be more like 3C (although with considerable uncertainty of it being between 2-4.5C), Hansen issued a correction of the original model using the newer climate sensitivity value.

We have been over this. I linked to these in the past. In 1986 he predicted the U.S. would be much warmer by now than it is. As you mention, his original global temperature projections have proven too warm. He has also over-predicted Ninos and global temperature records on several different occasions. It doesn't matter what his rationale was at the time, he has consistently over-estimated climate sensitivity and warming. If it was based on faulty science, so be it. I think it would be kind of silly and naive to think that's all been "fixed" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably wants validation. Why should anyone believe his predictions for decades from now if he can't get the ones for the next year right? It's not like ENSO is out of his realm of climate science. I admire his guts to make these short term predictions, but getting them wrong does hurt his reputation.

Still don't really understand the difference between weather and climate, do you?

If you look at Hansen's original prediction you'll see that he used the term 'probable', not 'definitely, not 'beyond any possible doubt' - just probable. And it was said in an op-ed peice, not a peer-reviewed paper. The quote I"ve seen is "It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable". Which I take to mean that he thought it more likely than not.

As I said in my earlier post - what's the big deal? If he had been right on that would you suddenly feel that he's right on all of his predictions? I doubt it. Your mind is closed and nothing Hansen says will change that. Your loss, not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been over this. I linked to these in the past. In 1986 he predicted the U.S. would be much warmer by now than it is. As you mention, his original global temperature projections have proven too warm. He has also over-predicted Ninos and global temperature records on several different occasions. It doesn't matter what his rationale was at the time, he has consistently over-estimated climate sensitivity and warming. If it was based on faulty science, so be it. I think it would be kind of silly and naive to think that's all been "fixed" now.

The estimate of climate sensitivity he used came from the work of other scientists. He doesn't estimate climate sensitivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't really understand the difference between weather and climate, do you?

If you look at Hansen's original prediction you'll see that he used the term 'probable', not 'definitely, not 'beyond any possible doubt' - just probable. And it was said in an op-ed peice, not a peer-reviewed paper. The quote I"ve seen is "It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable". Which I take to mean that he thought it more likely than not.

As I said in my earlier post - what's the big deal? If he had been right on that would you suddenly feel that he's right on all of his predictions? I doubt it. Your mind is closed and nothing Hansen says will change that. Your loss, not his.

I thought the science was settled young Phillip?? If so, why the wishy-washy words. And let us not forget that most peer reviewed papers use similar "outs" just in case the scinece is not yet settled. Really, climate science is a pseudo-science at times with the hedging that goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the science was settled young Phillip?? If so, why the wishy-washy words. And let us not forget that most peer reviewed papers use similar "outs" just in case the scinece is not yet settled. Really, climate science is a pseudo-science at times with the hedging that goes on.

You don't even know what Phillip is talking about... the 'wishy washy' words were in reference to Hansen's ENSO prediction... not climate prediction.

Try to keep up. You just interject these threads with completely off topic rants because you can't keep up with the subject matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't really understand the difference between weather and climate, do you?

If you look at Hansen's original prediction you'll see that he used the term 'probable', not 'definitely, not 'beyond any possible doubt' - just probable. And it was said in an op-ed peice, not a peer-reviewed paper. The quote I"ve seen is "It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable". Which I take to mean that he thought it more likely than not.

As I said in my earlier post - what's the big deal? If he had been right on that would you suddenly feel that he's right on all of his predictions? I doubt it. Your mind is closed and nothing Hansen says will change that. Your loss, not his.

:lol:

So ENSO predictions is "weather"? I guess Hansen, a climate scientist, doesn't get the difference either?

Why is my mind closed? Because I am willing to question some things that you apparently are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

So ENSO predictions is "weather"? I guess Hansen, a climate scientist, doesn't get the difference either?

Why is my mind closed? Because I am willing to question some things that you apparently are not?

Regardless of whether you call ENSO a climate or weather phenomenon, predicting ENSO is completely different than predicting long-term climate change.

I think you know this.. and your presentation of these old fallacious arguments is tiresome at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The estimate of climate sensitivity he used came from the work of other scientists. He doesn't estimate climate sensitivity.

We all stand on the shoulders of others. Doesn't make you not responsible for predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Hansen did NOT get into this field for the money. I'm sure he firmly believed in everything he said back when he got into this. Now, fast forward to the present... Does the fact that he's getting a lot of money influence the things he says these days? No way to prove it does or doesn't. Money is a very powerful tool, but for all we know he could still really believe in what he says, in which case his science is not very good at all with respect to ENSO forecasting and he should stick to longer term stuff.

:unsure: ....His long term prognostications aren't stellar by any means....I forget, but during an interview back in the early '90's, didn't he say that some part of the waterfront (that he pointed to outside his NYC office) was going to be under water by now?? He obviously was in error with his infamous 1988 graph....and didn't he project (again, back in the 90's) that SLR would accelerate over the next few decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: ....His long term prognostications aren't stellar by any means....I forget, but during an interview back in the early '90's, didn't he say that some part of the waterfront (that he pointed to outside his NYC office) was going to be under water by now?? He obviously was in error with his infamous 1988 graph....and didn't he project (again, back in the 90's) that SLR would accelerate over the next few decades?

This myth has recently been debunked.. the reporter that claimed Hansen said this was lying. Hansen said the west side highway would be underwater in 40 years IF CO2 doubled. The reporter said 20-30 (which WUWT turned into 20) and left off the critical part about IF CO2 doubled.

http://wattsupwithth...r-james-hansen/

I guess that's what happens when you get your info from fraudulent sources. As it got passed down 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand through fraudulent sources each of them changed it to suit their bias.

His 1988 temperature 'predictions' were projections based on certain emissions and a certain climate sensitivity. He just developed the model.. but the incorrect info being fed into the model was not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether you call ENSO a climate or weather phenomenon, predicting ENSO is completely different than predicting long-term climate change.

I think you know this.. and your presentation of these old fallacious arguments is tiresome at best.

1. ENSO is clearly a climate phenomenon, with weather consequences. Just like AGW - though the climate/weather connection is clearer with ENSO because it occurs on much shorter time frames.

2. Again, why doesn't James Hansen see the difference in predicting the two? Clearly, he believes he is in a position as a climate scientist where he should be able to predict ENSO.

These aren't fallacious arguments, these are inconvenient facts that some people like to gloss over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: ....His long term prognostications aren't stellar by any means....I forget, but during an interview back in the early '90's, didn't he say that some part of the waterfront (that he pointed to outside his NYC office) was going to be under water by now?? He obviously was in error with his infamous 1988 graph....and didn't he project (again, back in the 90's) that SLR would accelerate over the next few decades?

Oh I'm not trying to overly defend him, as he has overpredicted IMO.

At least, though overdone, he was on the right side of the global trend.

Calling for a strong nino when in fact we wind up heading back into a moderate nina... Well, you can't get much more wrong than that, so it's all relative. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×