Print 97 comment(s) - last by The Die Hard.. on Oct 11 at 7:22 AM

GISS's James Hansen  (Source: NASA)
New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.  Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by  Hansen.  Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare  factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.

Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.

But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim.  While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews.  Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute'  funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest. 

But the issues don't stop here.  Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry.  Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official"  temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees.  Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend.  A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'" 

Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.

Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI.  Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: A Couple Criticisms
By clovell on 9/26/2007 4:24:47 PM , Rating: 4

You can't discuss potential bias within the study of AGW and not bring up politics. There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has assimilated AGW into their platform. To accept a lopsided amount of funding and / or grants on a topic that, by your own words, is still under review from a source that has a vested interest does not ring as objective science.

The money trail may not be a counter-arguement on its own, but I think Michael has done a good job of using it not as a basis, but as a support for his article.

I do see your point - that DT is a Tech site. However, I think Michael and you are on the same page more than you think. Michael address the clear mixing of politics and science in this issue with the same contempt you have. He's striving to expose it so that we can strip away the bias that hangs over AGW and get at the truth. I think you'll agree that's a goal to work towards.

RE: A Couple Criticisms
By Ringold on 9/26/2007 6:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has assimilated AGW into their platform.

I agree. That the political parties in America have aligned so neatly on the opposing sides of global warmings cause and what to do about it means that this is no less political of a topic in nature than abortion. The only way to full extricate politics from GW at this point would be to, like abortion, not talk about it at all.

I think it was TomZ who made the distinction between the blog itself and the comments. That's a good one; a blog post can avoid being mired in politics while a conversation can take place freely amongst posters regarding the political side. That's about the most one could even possibly hope for as far as seperating politics from AGW news at this point, IMHO.

That said, like you said clovell, it's sad that this is the way it is, but... getting right back in to it... it wasn't conservatives around the globe that launched the assault.

RE: A Couple Criticisms
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 8:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
It does seem as though the Democrats have tied their fortunes to the global warming juggernaut, for better or worse. Just a few months ago I would have argued that neither party was really aligned with AGW/CO2, but listening to the Presidential debates has changed my mind about that.

With a lot of Americans believing in AGW, the Republicans had better get some strategy figured out on that topic, otherwise it may prove to be a significant factor in the elections. I'd like to see a good, clean race in November '08.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki