Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief
Information
Category:
Organizations - Political Organizations
Description:
CHARGES

James Hansen has violated

1. NASA’s ethical laws (Misuse of Position)

2. The Hatch Act (Political Activities of Federal Employees)

3. Title 18 of the US Code (including Chapter 29: Elections and Political Activities)

EVIDENCE

List of breaches

James Hansen uses NASA stationery to intimidate school textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin Company. (Read the letter)

James Hansen appeared on the front page of the Greenpeace website to incite civil disobedience. (View the youtube video:... (read more)
Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public.

Admins

Report Group

Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief

Join
 

Basic Info
 

Name:
Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief
Category:
Organizations - Political Organizations
Description:
CHARGES

James Hansen has violated

1. NASA’s ethical laws (Misuse of Position)

2. The Hatch Act (Political Activities of Federal Employees)

3. Title 18 of the US Code (including Chapter 29: Elections and Political Activities)

EVIDENCE

List of breaches

James Hansen uses NASA stationery to intimidate school textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin Company. (Read the letter)

James Hansen appeared on the front page of the Greenpeace website to incite civil disobedience. (View the youtube video:... (read more)
Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public.

Contact Info
 

Recent News
 

News:
From Richard Courtney

Thank you for the invitation to join this group.

I have two comments to make. One concerns the propriety of Dr James Hansen making personal remarks on public policy whilst in US government employment. And the other concerns the evidence of man made global warming.

Dr James Hansen asserts effects of man-made global warming that have no basis in fact and deny the scientific method. And he uses his position to influence politicians with his disinformation; e.g. see my rebuttal of his draft letter to then President Elect Obama that can be read at:
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHG's) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of AGW, and
(b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.

There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.

The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesn't prove human’s warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.

But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.

1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.

So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.

But some people promote the hypothesis. They've several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

So, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them – notably Dr James Hansen - claiming they are.

I was the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal (a.k.a. National Coal Board: NCB) based at the Coal Research Establishment (CRE). The NCB was wholly owned by UK Government and, therefore, I was a government employee for 31 years. I – rightly – was forbidden to make any public statements that could be thought to relate to my work because such a statement could be interpreted as representing the position of CRE, NCB and/or UK Government. I would have been dismissed from my employment with complete loss of pension rights if I had I made such a public statement.

And the dismissal would have been correct because my employment gave my opinions weight that no individual’s opinions deserve.

It is disgraceful that Dr Hansen – a US Government employee – is not subject to similar constraints because his behavior has had significant repercussions.

Dr Hansen obtains his credibility from his position as head of NASA GISS. So, Dr Hansen's opinions on matters of climate are accepted by a law court as being 'expert opinion'. And his lack of academic qualifications in climatology do not alter that acceptance because his position as head of NASA GISS is de facto evidence that NASA declares he is an expert in the subject.

This provided a problem when Dr Hansen came to the UK to act as an expert witness in the trial of eco-terrorists who had invaded the Kingsnorth Power Station. The invasion caused the power station to be shut down for a period, and large costs were incurred by its owners to remove graffiti which the eco-terrorists had painted on a tall chminey.

In that trial Dr Hansen made absurd statements concerning effects of operating the power station, but the defence did not present experts in an attempt to oppose his 'evidence'. Such an attempted defence would have been certain to fail because even a position in UK Met. Office would not provide as much weight to an expert opinion as Dr Hansen's position as head of NASA GISS gives him (n.b. a court of law judges expert opinions and not scientific evidence) . The eco-terrorists were acquitted.

So, as a result of Dr Hansen speaking to that law court, eco-terrorists have a legal right to attack power stations in the UK. And that right will remain unless and until the UK Parliament alters the law.

Dr Hansen is an employee of US Government and the US is supposed to be an ally of the UK: n.b. he is de facto an agent of the US. Therefore, Dr Hansen’s actions in this UK legal case are tantamount to an act of war by the US on the UK. For this reason, if for no other, he should be sacked.

Richard Courtney