Follow-up to James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire
Well, well, well. James Hansen is becoming rich by selling his global warming mantra to anyone who will listen. He continues to exploit his tax payer funded position for personal gain. But it is all well above board I am sure. His position on global warming is not at all influenced by these lucrative outside engagements I am sure.
One does have to wonder, however, if he would be raking in this level of outside income if his findings weren’t in line with the IPCC doom and gloom scenario designed to kill off the global economy.
Sort of makes you say, hmmm.
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.”
How can you not believe in God when stuff like this keeps happening! :)
Global warming activists had stormed Washington for what was billed as the nation’s largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change, only to see the city almost shut down by a major winter storm.
As Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter, politicians cancelled appearances and schools and businesses were closed.
The storm also buried under 15cm of snow any hope of global warming activism.
Reports said the activists had hoped to swarm Washington in an effort to force the Government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol.
Fox News said the scene was reminiscent of a day in January 2004, when Al Gore made an address on global warming in New York — on one of the coldest days in the city’s history.
The storm was more serious elsewhere, paralysing most of the east coast yesterday.
For the first time in five years New York City cancelled school for its 1.1 million students.
I think God invented global warming just so he could mock the climate scientists like this!
Anyone familiar with the Global Warming propaganda machine knows who James Hansen is, and no he isn’t the creator of the Muppets, Jim Hansen, but given their obvious similarities such a mistake is easy to make. No, James Hansen has become the poster boy for Global Warming alarmism over the past few years because of his work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) which is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For years we have heard just how pure his research in the area of Global Warming is because he is funded by the government and not by energy industry companies.
Well it has recently come to light via Investor’s Business Daily that James Hansen was not only funded by NASA, but that he had received up to $720,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute most likely under their “politicization of science” program. An irony under the circumstances to say the least. So here we find out that George Soros paid up to $720,000 to have James Hansen go out and publicly evangelize about Global Warming. I guess it is no surprise, then, that Hansen has gained so much notoriety of late and just why he has been such a vocal proponent of the whole Global Warming theme. Fame and fortune are powerful motivators to be sure.
James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire!
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007
Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire’s backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.
George Soros & MoveOn.org: Exclusive Series
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute , which gave him “legal and media advice”?
That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen’s OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
[ ... ]
Original Article: High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail
Robert Carter makes the case in the above article that the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming is completely overblown both in its effect and in its realistic level of consequences. Here are a few excerpts with some additional thoughts and perspective.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that “I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with“.
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: “We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.
“I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.”
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
I tend to agree. It is somewhat ironic, however, that Michael Griffin expresses the thought that “I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with” while James Hansen of GISS is one of the most visible and the most vocal of the Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents. NASA seems a bit schizophrenic on the issue as an organization.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin’s other statements, which said that “I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists”.
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
So, to summarize Carter’s position, if we adjust the temperature record to account for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions the Earth’s observed warming is minimal despite significant increases in CO2, and given the effects likely to take place from a solar output perspective the next few decades are likely to experience a net cooling.
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
This is an important point and one that is frequently overlooked. In today’s world we see politicians running around and making outrageous claims with respect to Climate Change based almost entirely on the advice of the IPCC which is at its heart a political, as opposed to a scientific, organization. The reports issued by the IPCC are predominantly written by the politicians first in the form of a summary, and the actual scientific papers are then scrubbed to insure that they do not contradict the political positions. By blindly accepting the positions of the IPCC on Climate Change the world’s nations are effectively delegating their political responsibilities to the bureaucrats of other countries. This is a very dangerous thing to do as most of the other nations in the world have much to gain and very little to loose as part of this exercise.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth’s current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change.
And here we see that there is an irony that we will be spending $US Billions, or more, to reduce greenhouse emissions in an effort to combat Global Warming inspite of the facts that (a) we are unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome, and (b) that outcome is likely to be cooling in the next few decades anyway based on the Solar Output trends.
Hyping concerns over the declining levels of sea ice in the Arctic seems to be a favorite theme among the global warming alarmists. Arctic sea ice is, in fact, at an historic minimum which must be proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming, correct? That is what the alarmists want you to believe, but be aware that they are trying to deceive you with selective data.
While the Northern Hemisphere is at an historic low for sea ice the Southern Hemisphere is near an historic high, so to a large extent the decreases in the Arctic are being offset by increases in the Antarctic. So how bad is the net change on a global level?
Things to note in the graph provided is that on a global scale the amount of sea ice has decreased by a little over 5% in the past 28 years. This is a far cry from the alarmist claims being made based on the Arctic alone. Other things of note include:
- Global level of sea ice typically varies from about +2 Million Square Kilometers to about -2 Million Square Kilometers relative to the 1979 through 2000 mean. We are currently at -1 Million Square Kilometers which appears to be well within the normal range of sea ice variation.
- We have absolutely no means of identifying whether the levels of sea ice being used as the reference (e.g. 1979-2000) are above normal, at normal, or below normal in relation to a larger historical context. If those years happen to be at a high point in the natural cycles of sea ice coverage then a downward trend for the past 28 years may not be anomalous at all. Without further historical data over a longer period of observation there is no way to say whether we should be alarmed by the observed decrease or not.
Despite the desperate attempts to convince you otherwise, the facts shown here indicate little, if any, cause for concern regarding global levels of sea ice.